A little step back to the marines topic:

I assume that marines could serve well in a "conventional" war not only as invasion (Normandy) and flank invasion threat (Inchon), but also as specialists for river crossings, riverine warfare, warfare in swamps and as the premier heliborne ground combat force.


Why not carve out a role set for the marines that includes this into conventional warfare roles (and thus replaces the army heliborne elements) with about the same level of doctrinal authority as army armor or army national guard units have?

The rapid deployment role with MEUs could be the second pillar, parallel to USAF wings, CVBGs and paras.

The 3rd pillar could be the presidential helo + embassy guards role; rather representative security functions.

4th pillar; stupid small wars - preferably in a quick & dirty pattern as the French used it with success in Africa (possibly again in competition with army paras if they finally get some decent vehicles for their jobs; equals to BMDs).


Get some doctrinal clarity and thus clarified purpose, then you can define what kind of budget is needed (as opposed to keeping things on autopilot and let bureaucratic instincts influence this decision).

I guess the USMC could be halved over the next ten years (with early full pension retirement of senior personnel, in order to avoid a poor chieftain_to_indian ratio). It wouldn't lose its relevance.
Suck it up, nobody is going to recapture those island chains in front of China's coast if China captured them. Not going to happen.
Without that,there's simply no doctrinal equivalent of Plan Orange and thus no reason for the USMC as it exists today.

P.S.: Main battle tanks in a marine corps ranks right next to supersonic strike fighters for a marine corps close to the top of the list of possible marine corps stupidities.
Oh, wait.