User talk:Anyeverybody/Archives/2009/February

United States Marine Corps

The United States Marine Corps is not part of the United States Navy. While The Navy and Marine Corps are adminitratively managed by the Department of the Navy they are two different uniformed services. Also keep in mind that the United States Air Force use to be part of the United States Army until just after World War II when they split into two different uniformed services. Also, the Department of the Army, Department of the Air Force and the Department of the Navy are all administratively managed by the Department of Defense. The reason why both the Navy and the Marine Corps are under the same administrative department is because of the personnel size of the the Navy and Marine Corps combined would be equivalent to the personnel size of the Army or the Air Force. Also, the Navy and the Marine Corps share a common bond as the Navy provides sea going transport for Marine personnel. Neovu79 (talk) 07:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello :) Comparing the USAF/USA's historical relationship, which I don't dispute, to the USN/USMC would indeed be valid if this were 1946, as the USAAF (previously the USAAFC, C standing for Corps) was indeed then part of the army.

Today things are different; The USAF reports to the Secretary of the Air Force. USAF officer candidates are appointed to the Air Force Academy. Is there a Marine Corps academy? (No, Marines go to the Naval Academy) Is there a civilian Secretary of the Marine Corps? (No, the Marines report to SECNAV If you take a look at the DOD page again, you'll note there is no Department of the Marines)

I'm not saying the USMC is not a uniformed service, only that it's a department within the navy. The term Marine isn't just a USMC thing, aboard ships of war it has always been necessary to have men who were dedicated fighters; thus came the term Marine (military). Which makes sense if you stop and think about it, to repeal an enemy boarding party do you want the guy who rigs the sails/runs the engines or the guy with a rifle/machine gun? If you need to project force ashore you definitely don't want to send your sail riggers/engineers to do that unless of course the ship can run itself ;)

(PS: Did you ever wonder why there is an anchor in the USMC insignia and says Department of the Navy over the top?) Anynobody(?) 00:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

No, the Marine Corps is not a department within the Navy, it is a subcomponent of the Department of the Navy for resource personnel and training. The Marine Corp, like the other three primary military compoments, are under direct operational control under the Department of Defense via the Goldwater-Nichols Act. In any case, 10 U.S.C. § 101(a) of the U.S. Code of law explicitly states the Marine Corps as it's own service witch is why the Commandant of the Marine Corps serves on the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

P.S. Actually, this is the primary seal of the Department of the Navy. and no, I never wondered why the seal of the USMC says Department of the Navy because I already know that the Department of the Navy manages personnel and training of the USMC for the DoD. :-) Neovu79 (talk) 14:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to take my word for it though, check out what they say about their position in the DoD: The Marine Corps is a second armed service in the Department of the Navy. Which makes sense when you look at the departments in the DoD; Army, Navy, USAF

In short The United States Marine Corps is part of the United States Navy, it says so on their freakin emblem (which is why I mentioned it, to point out the fact they are component of the Navy; I'm not sure why you added an image of the Dept of Navy seal though. I'm also unsure why you point to the Commandant of the Marine Corps as proof of the corps not being part of the Navy, every unit needs a CO)

(Also the Goldwater-Nichols Act simply streamlined aspects of the chain of command, it didn't separate the corps from the navy. If it had, then the USMC seal would say something like Department of the Marines where it now says Department of Navy.) Anynobody(?) 04:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that you may be looking at thing too black and white. :-) The link you provided say [t]he Marine Corps is a second armed service in the Department of the Navy, which I do not refute. :-) I think that what you're overlooking is the words armed service in that sentence. Each of the five military branches is an armed service. Why would the USMC need it's own seperate military managing department when they are currently the second smallest armed service? You're not looking at the overall picture here. :-) Do you realize how much it would cost us out of our own pockets in the increase of taxes to stand up a seperate military department for the Marine Corps? You're looking at manpower, civilian personnel, and liasons, seperate procurments, bulding/bases, logistics, force projections, research, development, acquisition... The list goes on. You're looking at billions of tax dollars. Why would our government spend that much more when they can do the same job under one management department? Also the United States Coast Guard is the smallest, and they don't even have it's own military managing department. The United States Department of Homeland Security has direct control of the Coast Guard. Also as per 14 U.S.C. § 3, in times of war the Coast Guard is placed directly under the Department of the Navy just like the Marine Corps. So my question to you is this, if the Coast Guard were to be placed in under the Department of the Navy via 14 U.S.C. § 3, do you consider them to be part of the United States Navy as well? :-) Also, the Commandant of the Marine Corps is not considered a CO. He is a chief of staff. Like his other service counter parts, while he is considered the highest ranking officer in the Marine Corps, as per 10 U.S.C. § 5043 he has no operational control of marine forces. As you have stated above, Goldwater-Nichols Act places the command authority from the SecDef to the unified combatant commanders, who are the ones that have operational command. The Commandant is primarily responsible for ensuring the organization, policy, plans, and programs for the Marine Corps as well as other duties as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Neovu79 (talk) 06:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's a piece of historical trivia to ponder. :-) For for seven months, from Febuarary 1781 to Spetember 1781, the Navy was abolished and disbanded by the Second Continental Congress yet the there still remained a Marine Corps. If the Marined Corps is part of the Navy, why weren't they disbanded as well? Neovu79 (talk) 07:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

To answer your last point first; They too were indeed deactivated and wouldn't formally be established again until July 11, 1798 when Congress authorized to be raised, for the naval armament,.... I must ask, have you read our article on the corps you've linked? United States Marine Corps#Origins. Let's assume for a moment you're right and there was a Marine Corps without a Navy, can you actually cite operations the USMC undertook during that time?

Back to the main point, you said: I think that you may be looking at thing too black and white. Indeed, it is in black and white on the National Command Organization chart.

I'm not being glib or anything, there they aren't under Military Departments. If what you've been saying this whole time were actually correct then the USMC would appear in it's own box under Military Departments, there's no room for interpretation here; if the gov't were to shut down the dept of navy they'd also be shutting down the Marines unless at the same time it created a new department just for them.

(To answer your question regarding the Coast Guard, if it were to be placed in the DoN then indeed it would be part of the Navy. That's the point, if an organization falls under the authority of a larger organization then it is part of that larger organization. If, for some reason, the CG were placed in the Department of the Air Force, then they'd be part of the Air Force. As it is the Marines are part of the Navy and the CG isn't even under DoD making them not currently part of the Navy.) Anynobody(?) 01:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The National Command Organization chart breaks it down by military deparments not the service itself. I don't think that you're seeing the difference, I'll admit small, between the Department of the Navy and the United States Navy. The Deparment of the Navy is run by a nonuniformed civilians while the United States Navy is a "uniformed" service. The two are linked because by law, military officers must follow the orders of the civilians with Senior Executive Service (SES) of the Department of the Navy and the Department of Defense' namely the secretaries, deputy secretaries, ans assistant secretaries of both departments. Also have you read the rest of United States Marine Corps#Origins? :-) It says ... Congress passed the Act for the Better Organization of the Marine Corps in 1834, stipulating that the Corps was part of the Department of the Navy as a sister service to the U.S. Navy. I truely hope you're understanding where I'm coming from. :-) Just because the United States Marine Corps is part of the Department of the Navy, doesn't make them part of the United States Navy. Neovu79 (talk) 05:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I really do enjoy this debate. :-) It has definitely tested a lot of my knowledge about the workings and structure of the Navy I work for so thank you in advance. :-) Neovu79 (talk) 05:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm simply amazed that a person could say, and honestly believe, that a service in the Department of the Navy isn't part of the Navy. A friend of mine who likes football said it'd be kind of like saying the NFC isn't part of the NFL. I think of it more like saying the Skunk Works aren't part of Lockheed. (Or WWII Fallschirmjäger weren't part of the Luftwaffe.)

(If you are a Marine, do they seriously tell you that there was a time when the Corps existed without the Navy? Seriously, ask yourself this; if there were no Navy why would we need a second Army? We wouldn't, it seems like they'd be folded into the Army. Or maybe start calling the Marines the Army and the current Army the Reserves...) Anynobody(?) 01:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping not to involve credentials because credentials are irrelevant when it comes to Wiki. But since you bring it up, no I am not a Marine, but my father is a retired Chief Petty Officer. I am a government employee working for the Department of the Navy in the Bureau of Naval Personnel. I help the navy in analysis for personnel plans and policy. :-) Neovu79 (talk) 02:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

As to your first statement, those are completely different from what we're discussing because they are subsidiaries or components under their parent company. Think of it this way. The United States Navy is a subsidiary of the Department of the Navy. The United States Marine Corps is a subsidiary of the Department of the Navy. The United States Marine Corps is not a subsidiary of the United States Navy. Let's take your example of the NFL. The NFC is under the NFL. The AFC is under the NFL. The AFC is not under the NFC. Just because the Washington Redskins is an NFL team, does not make them an AFC team. :-) Neovu79 (talk) 02:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Image:BashTuDHL757.png

Hey Hey! Thanks for your answer. I would prefer a version without background, I guess that's a really good idea. Because in the German Wikipedia there are many people who are like narrow-minded; they complain about the picture because of its darkness but if you made it lighter they would complain about it as well because it happened at night and so on... So it is a good idea to remake it without any background. Thanks so much in advance, Yellowcard (talk) 13:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey mate, you can find my response over here. Thanks again, Yellowcard (talk) 14:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)