Document Page: First | Prev | Next | All | Image | This Release | Search

habit of tailoring forces through task organization,  its land,
sea, and air orientation; and its doctrinal insistence on com-
bined arms are crucial characteristics in this respect.  They
have produced a flexible, well-rounded force amenable to joint
service.

b.   The Marine Corps also has long recognized that it exists to
fight.   For that reason, it cannot sit on the sidelines; it must
be on the first team.   Throughout this century, being on the
first team has meant participation in joint operations.

C.   The Marine Corps has not been reluctant to take the steps
required for successful participation in joint operations.   In
World War I,  it organized new regiments along Army lines, and
then sent them on detached duty with that Service for combat in
France.   In the inter-war period Marines developed the funda-
mental doctrine which guided the planning for the amphibious
landings of World War II.   When the Korean War began, the Marine
Corps pooled men and equiqment from all over the country to field
first a brigade and then an entire Marine division.   For the
Vietnam War,  it committed two divisions and a heavily reinforced
aircraft wing, and then formed a fourth active division to meet
normal contingencies.   When the war took a critical turn, the
Marine Corps sent two-thirds of the new division to Vietnam for
several months.   In short, the Marine Corps has always done
whatever was necessary to get into the front ranks of the joint
effort against the nation's foes.

d.   In spite of such efforts, the Marine Corps' participation in
joint operations has not been without stress and a certain amount
of acrimony.   The Smith-vs-Smith controversy of World War II,
including its continuing effects on command relationships in
joint operations, provides an example of the pitfalls and prob-
lems.

e.   A major lesson from the historical record is that disputes
within the joint arena should not be entered into lightly.   For
example, General Pershing's decision in World War I not to permit
the formation of a separate Marine division still affects joint
operations.   The implication in Pershing's decision--that Marines
were incapable of managing such a large command--rankled a whole
generation of Marine officers, and the bitterness carried over
into World War II.   The Smith-vs-Smith controversy of that war
derived,  in part, from perceptions dating back to Pershing's de-
cision.   The Smith-vs-Smith affair even played a role in the
course of the Vietnam War because it made senior commanders
reluctant to relieve subordinates of another Service.   If two
events--Pershing's decision and Smith-vs-Smith--can affect mili-
tary operations 70 and 45 years later, than disagreements within
the joint arena call for a carefully considered resolution.


                               1-10

Document Page: First | Prev | Next | All | Image | This Release | Search