What we support and defend

[carl]

Bob (of Bob's World):

Bill M. already said most of the things I wanted to say and he said them better than I could have. Like him I am glad to see that you now acknowledge the need for a standing army.

I have a comment about the following that you said.

Now, I do not believe that we need no standing Army, but the Army is a warfighting force, so not much is needed in peace of that type of capacity. The Marines are another story, and they are not "another Army," they are part of our Naval forces and perform the land component supporting role to our peacetime naval forces you have described in earlier posts.

The Marines to expeditionary interventions. Yes, in times of war they are a competent warfighting force, but their primary purpose is to ensure we have the capacity in times of peace to perform these types of limited operations as necessary to secure our interests

The Marines are just a duplicate Army. The support they give to the Navy is what an army of a maritime power normally does. Everything you say is unique to the Marines is what the Army did before the Marines got big and it was what the British Army did for a very long time. You can call the standing army we will have the Marine Corps or you can call it the Army or whatever. It will be the same thing and will fulfill the same function.

Signed:

Carl (the ill informed, un-American Chicken hawk.)