-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Operational Experience
- Thread starter ZoomByU
- Start date
- Status
T-man
Registered User
I don't know from personal experience, but I would say considering that they are first on the battlefield, and last off, added to the fact that they are the only branch of the service under direct control of the President (president does not need to seek congress approval for deployment of Marines like he does with other branches). I would say yes.
So the President has to get congressional approval to move a carrier strike group somewhere? Conversely, the President could deploy the Marines beyond the limits of the Was Powers Act, because they're "under his direct control?" It that really what you ment to say? I think the first phrase in your post is accurate though.T-man said:
Keeping it real,
Brett
All the service branches are under the direct control of the President. He is afterall, the Command in Chief.
T-man
Registered User
Steve Wilkins said:
Yes, but my understanding is that the President must have approval from congress to send any branch of the military into battle, with the exception of the Marines. I could be mistaken on this, as I don't have solid proof. This has just always been my understanding.
Sorry - but I think the AF and Army get a bit more operational experience - quite a bit more. Mostly because they are simply bigger and have more reasources "on demand". USN/USMC are generally forward deployed fulfilling all sorts of long term/planned obligations and our resources are scarcer.
So if operational experience - combat operations short of war - the army and AF get far more of the fill in that department.
So if operational experience - combat operations short of war - the army and AF get far more of the fill in that department.
I disagree greatly. The Marine Corps gets tapped with both combat ops and ops other than war a lot more than the other branches, especially in relation to its size. While AFSOC or Army SpecOps may have a high op tempo, the Army has nine divisions, and until very recently they rarely went anywhere. In 4 years in a fleet squadron, I did 2 humanitarian ops, a peace enforcement op, law enforcement support, and extended combat ops ashore. And now I'm fairly non-salty by comparison to some guys in the fleet now. Look at Iraq, Afghanistan, Liberia, Haiti, etc.
To dovetail in to waht Phrogdriver said. AS big as the other services are the operational experience get diluted by numbers. There are Army Divisions sitting in Germany without a combat veteran to be had. The same is true of Air Force squadrons in the Pacific etc. Though as small and stretched as we are every victor unit in the Marine Coprs has been through the theater at least once. We will have a generation of combat experieinced leaders throughout the O and SNCO side for years to come
Personally, I would give it to the Coasties. Drug interdiction, SAR, Port protection, Coastal patrolling, Ship and air intercepts and takedowns, HAZ waste cleanups etc plus the lay a pretty mean channel marker. Keep in mind, they are also deployed in theatre for OIF. They are a service streched to the limit in regards to personnel but they never get their just credit. Semper Fly, Frumby
T-man
Registered User
Frumby said:
Good point! I'd agree with that, I think the assumption made by all of us was that the original post asked about combat experience, but he only said "operational experience" which I'd agree the Coasties beat anyone hands down, because they are always on their front lines.
samadma
OCC-169 Grad
War Powers Resolution, November 7, 1973
The purpose of the War Powers Resolution is to assure that the president has the support of Congress and the American people before involving United States troops in risky foreign ventures.
The difficulties of this resolution can be seen at a glance. In sending the Marines into Lebanon in 1982 and 1983, President Reagan ignored the resolution altogether, citing his authority as commander-in-chief and his power to conduct foreign relations. Congress responded with a law permitting the President to station troops in Lebanon for eighteen months.
Thus, like any law, act, or resolution there's always is a loophole.
I hope this helps.
The purpose of the War Powers Resolution is to assure that the president has the support of Congress and the American people before involving United States troops in risky foreign ventures.
The difficulties of this resolution can be seen at a glance. In sending the Marines into Lebanon in 1982 and 1983, President Reagan ignored the resolution altogether, citing his authority as commander-in-chief and his power to conduct foreign relations. Congress responded with a law permitting the President to station troops in Lebanon for eighteen months.
Thus, like any law, act, or resolution there's always is a loophole.
I hope this helps.
samadma said:
THAT was a non-sequitur...
- Status