Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion The Water Cooler Maybe Al Gore is onto something...

Your friend's statement is very true that militaries always prepare to fight the last war. In that respect it left the Marine Corps as you point out in a much better position to deal with the present situation. Also, the Marine Corps Combat Development Command and it's predecessors. Have always tried to focus on anticipating the next war. They developed an amphibious warfare doctrine in anticipation of a war with Japan despite the naysayers claiming opposed amphibious landings were impossible. The Corps played a pivotal role in the bringing close air support into U.S. doctrine from a British concept because it’s hard for artillery to keep up with infantry in the jungles. The Attack helicopter evolved for the same reason that it’s hard for tanks and anti-tank guns to maneuver in the jungles. The first modern recon drones in the U.S. were bought by the Marine Corps from the Israelis when the Commandant was shown a live image of himself looking at himself looking at the image.

I can’t speak to today’s Corps. I got out because as the Vietnam Vets left the bureaucrats began taking over as happens with all peacetime militaries. However, the culture of the Naval service has historically been more “free thinking.” If you think about it back in the age of sail you couldn't just radio HQ for instructions on how to handle a problem. Naval officers often conducted U.S. foreign policy. Contrast this with the Army which almost never fought in number w/o being able to contact a higher HQ within days and the Air Force which has never existed even in a previous form w/o the ability to pick up a phone and call higher HQ. I’ve served in the Navy Reserve, Active Marine Corps, Army Guard and now the Air Guard and say that my experience bears out the bureaucratizing effects of the various services heritages.

And your comment about “psychological war” is correct. Many people mistakenly equate the maneuver warfare doctrine with moving tanks to engage the. However, that misses the whole point of the doctrine which is to win w/o fighting by putting your enemy in an untenable position via “maneuver“ be it physical or psychological. The latter being preferable. I read an excellent book (hope I still have it) by an Army Captain who chastised the Army’s application of the doctrine as non-existent in the First Gulf War.

P. S. A little piece of trivia most people don’t know. The cap badge of the Royal Marines shows the Eastern hemisphere while the Marine Corps badge displays the Western Hemisphere. Anglo-American Hegemony anyone?