Path: utzoo!attcan!telly!lethe!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: v059l49z@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Paul C Stacy)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Why need US Marines vs US Army?
Message-ID: <1990Dec22.033748.23518@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 22 Dec 90 03:37:48 GMT
References: <1990Dec21.030119.11014@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: University at Buffalo
Lines: 30
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: v059l49z@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Paul C Stacy)

In article <1990Dec21.030119.11014@cbnews.att.com>, stevel@u2.calgary.hp.com (Steve LaCourse) writes...
>From: stevel@u2.calgary.hp.com (Steve LaCourse)
>Being a non-American, I have trouble understanding the need for the US
>Marine Corps. I would be interested in hearing some justification for
>maintaining an elitest organization within the armed forces when the 
>capabilities provided by the Marines can be handled by the
>Army/Navy/AirForce.
> 

Many people (especially the army) have been asking this for a long time.
I can see some arguments for eliminating them.  They are (somewhat) limited
in the areas they can work because they are dependent on the Navy for supplies
and support, so working inland is harder.

The Marines in the early days provided security forces and did the close-range
man-to-man fighting.  They were the landing parties when boarding other ships
and going ashore.

I suppose there is some advantage in the fact that they have the same academy.

Just my two cents.




				Paul "Joe Friday " Stacy