OPPapers.com

A Corps For All Times

Throughout the history of America there have been those among the public that would ask, "Why it necessary to keep the United States Marine Corps?" They argue that it is not cost effective to have a separate force whose job can in effect be completed by the three other services. These facts cannot be disputed. The Army can handle all conflicts on land; the Navy can handle all battles at sea; the Air Force can dominate the sky. So why does the United States need a strictly amphibious force such as the Marine Corps? The answers are the Corps' traditions, its positioning of troops around the world, and its effective use of combined arms. These three characteristics set the Marine Corps apart from the other services and make it a necessity in the American Armed Forces.
There is nothing new in the concept of making landings on enemy held beaches; however, the notion of having a force specifically designed to take on such a mission is relatively new idea. During the American Revolutionary War and the War of 1812, Marines were employed as sharpshooters, raiding and landing parties. These missions suited the small force of Marines and as a result the Corps' reputation of excellence grew, making it an intricate part of the U.S. forces. These Corps' role in combat was not steadfast and soon its mission would change.
With the advent of steel ships, the roles of sharpshooters and raiding parties became obsolete, making amphibious assaults the chief task to be done by the Corps. By the dawn of the twentieth century the Corps began developing doctrine that emphasized a more offensive role. In 1913 Major Earl H. Ellis identified Japan as a potential enemy and began drafting plans to fight a war in the Pacific. He established that any such conflict would entail the taking of many small islands. This would require amphibious assaults unheard of in any war prior. The coming of the first World War put any implementation of Ellis' plan on hold but the idea dead...