USMC not a military department?

airmen2b

Active member
I read that the marines are not a considered a real department of the military unless the coutnry is in wartime. Does anybody else know anything about this?
 
so they are not thier own entiity? Why dont hte navy people then just recruit people and give them the option of marines during enlistment?
 
You know, the way they've been doing it for the last who-knows-how-many-years works fine, theres no reason to re-invent the wheel here.

My 2 cents.
 
no you are right futureranger i just was wondering why it was not its own military department ...more or less i was just suprised that it wasnt.
 
being a depeartment of the navy only means that the Corps serves with the navy.... this is more old time than now a days stuff...... the marines are now more of shock and awe troops that hit hard and fast with little prep time... hence the name expeditonary...... the US has relied on these men and women many times for thier dicipline and unique fighting ability... if you were to train them with the navy thier effectiveness would drop(not due to navy training just because it is two very different services)
 
It falls into the Dept of the Navy because it was created to be the Navy's infantry/ sharpshooters. I guess you just can't mess with tradition in the Corps! :D
 
TESTIMONY OF GENERAL CARL E. MUNDY, JR.
UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS, RETIRED

BEFORE THE HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

REGARDING REDESIGNATION OF THE POSITION OF THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY AS THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY AND THE MARINE CORPS

March 18, 2004


It's my privilege to come before this Committee to speak in support of your consideration of the proposal by Congressman Walter B. Jones to re-designate the position of Secretary of the Navy to Secretary of the Navy and Marine Corps.

In my judgment, this is an action that will accurately align the Secretary's title within his designated authority and responsibilities. The present title is confusing, represents only two-thirds of the uniformed service members in the Department, and is inconsistent with the status of the four Armed Services in the Department of Defense.

This proposal does not portend a change in the status of the Marine Corps within the Department. The status of the Corps, as a distinct Service, has evolved incrementally over many years through the actions of the Congress. Various pieces of long-standing legislation have effectively defined the Corps as an individual service within the Department of the Navy along with the U.S. Navy. More recently, there have been two important pieces of legislation. In 1980, the Congress formalized the status of the Commandant of the Marine Corps as a full member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Less than a decade later, the Goldwater-Nichols Act prescribed individual Service components, including the Marine Corps, within Unified Commands.

Thus, the status of the Marine Corps in the joint force organization and functioning of the Department of Defense is clear and operative. However, the titles "Department of the Navy" and "Secretary of the Navy" lead to some confusion in the public mind, as well as among civilian authorities and other Service members in both U.S. and allied defense establishments, and even in the ranks of the Navy and Marine Corps themselves from time to time as to the partnership of the Navy and Marine Corps within a common Department. Too often, a presumption is made that Marines are part of, or subordinate to the Navy.

I believe the changes proposed in H.R. 1741 will do much to clarify the relationship, responsibilities and functions of the appointed civilian authority over the United States Naval Services. Further, it will strengthen the understanding of the naval force structure within our defense establishment and the two Services that comprise it. Finally, I believe that any Secretary - present, or future - will be very proud to bear the title "Marine", as well as "Navy".

I thank you again for the opportunity to come before you, and will be pleased to respond to your questions.


Then in May, it was officially changed. This wasnt to seperate the two services but to acknowledge that the Marine Corps is a unit of its own within the Navy.
 
airmen2b said:
Why dont hte navy people then just recruit people and give them the option of marines during enlistment?

That's how the Brits do it... But you know us Americans we just have to do things the hard way. ;)
 
airmen2b said:
Why dont hte navy people then just recruit people and give them the option of marines during enlistment?

Then they wouldn't be Marines, but Navy personnel. Like the Army gives you the option to volunteer for Rangers of Airborne, but you're still part of the Army.
 
Raziel said:
Then they wouldn't be Marines, but Navy personnel. Like the Army gives you the option to volunteer for Rangers of Airborne, but you're still part of the Army.

Just like the SEALs are still a part of the Navy, but they do more Spec-Ops material.
 
It is pretty much exactly how the Air Force was part of the Army. Just there is really no reason to seperate the two yet.
 
At first the Marine Corps (take note it Marine with a capital M) was a branch of the military, but the Navy decided they needed some one to protect them. Also depending on how you look at it the Marine Corps was the first. The Army and Navy may have been created before the Corps but the Marines were fighting before either branch, hence "First To Fight". But while in Formation it goes Army, Marines, Navy, and Air Force bringing up the rear.
 
Back
Top