Form 2 Mef Ats Scenario #26 Forms Included In Scenario #26 Form 2 Schedule 2m (New: Fill & Download for Free

(Image courtesy of: marine gunner rank insignia)The USMC has a special, and enduring, requirement for experienced prior-enlisted Staff NCO infantry Marines to serve as commissioned warrant officers who are designated as special staff officers and principal advisors to commanders at all levels in the tactics, employment, development, research, and training with all organic weapons of the Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF), with an emphasis on organic infantry weapons.These Marine officers are officially named “Infantry Weapons Officers,” but through the lineage, customs, and courtesies associated with them, they are typically called “Marine Gunners,” a very old and respected throw-back to a century or more in the past.Their distinguishing rank insignia is one chief warrant officer rank bar, and their “bursting bomb” insignia, which they share only with the rank chevrons of the Marine Master Gunnery Sergeant/E-9 rank.They are typically assigned, one per, to each Marine infantry battalion, regiment, and division, with others assigned to higher-level MAGTFs such as a MEF, or to a base to manage training and marksmanship ranges, or to Headquarters, Marine Corps to participate in various staff actions, development and fielding of new weapons, inter-service task forces and boards involved in R&D and procurement of ground combat weapons, etc. Additionally, most USMC reserve infantry units also have a Gunner assigned to advise the unit commander with their training and readiness planning and execution.There are no reserve Gunners, only Regulars with many years of infantry experience (including Recon and MARSOC Critical Skills Operators), who are gunnery sergeants/E-7 or above, with outstanding records of achievement are selected for commissioning directly to CWO-2.See the USMC FY20 MOS Manual, NAVMC 1200.1E, Enclosure (1), pp. 1–18 to 1–19:https://www.trngcmd.marines.mil/Portals/207/Docs/wtbn/MCCMOS/FY20%20MOS%20Manual%20NAVMC_1200_1E_Signed.pdf?ver=2019-04-17-130202-033MOS 0306, Infantry Weapons Officer (III) (CWO5 to CWO2) PMOS, DC PP&Oa. Summary. The Marine Gunner is a Chief Warrant Officer specifically trained in the employment of infantry battalion organic weapons and training gear and assigned personnel, and in the basics of Combat Marksmanship as defined by the current version of reference (cg). Gunners are Special Staff Officers employed as the principal advisor to commanders at all levels. They assist in the development of training and employment plans designed to ensure Mission Essential Task compliance. They help design and vet the weaponeering and training policies of the commander and help to disseminate information to the unit’s personnel regarding such policies. They generate and quantify reports on the unit’s technical and tactical weaponeering proficiency and brief the unit commander as to where each subordinate unit sits in regards to his intent. They mentor the officers and Marines of the unit in all applicable mechanical, doctrinal and conceptual weaponeering and training matters as required to improve the general effectiveness and proficiency of the command. They have oversight of the unit's ammunition allocation and annual weapons requalification and certification programs. They accommodate all weapons organic to the MAGTF in accordance with the current version of reference (cf). Additional duties will include: Battalion Landing Team (BLT) Gunner ISO of a MEU, Team New Equipment Training (NET), new weapons systems and gear research and development, foreign weapons training, participation in applicable Course Curriculum Review Boards (CCRB), new curriculum development for marksmanship and infantry related tasks, vetting of draft Infantry and Marine Corps Common Skills Training and Readiness Manuals and fire support planning.b. Prerequisites(1) Must be a Gunnery Sergeant with a minimum of one-years’ time in grade (TIG) at the time of application.(2) Must have a minimum GT score of 110.(3) Must be a 0321, 0363, or 0369.(4) Or must have previously served in an infantry, light armored reconnaissance, or reconnaissance battalion as a Gunnery Sergeant in the 0321, 0363, 0372, or 0369 MOS.(5) Must have attended one or more of the following:(a) Infantry Unit Leaders Course (M10H5K2 or M03H5K4).(b) Advanced Infantry Marine Course (M10M3X2 or M03M3X4).(c) Infantry Small Unit Leaders Course (M100302 or M030304).(d) Light Armored Reconnaissance Leader Course (M10H3W2).(e) Reconnaissance Team Leader Course (M10NAN2).(f) Advanced Machinegun Course (M10H6A2 or M03H6A4).(g) Advanced Mortar Course (M10H5H2 or M03H5H4).(h) Advanced Assault Marine Course (M10MUS2 or M03MUS4).(i) Advanced Anti-Armor Course (M10MUR2 or M03MUR4).c. Requirements(1) Must complete the Warrant Officer Basic Course (M02UNB4).(2) Must complete the Infantry Weapons Officer Course (IWOC) (M02H3Z4), Quantico, VA.d. Duties. For a complete listing of duties and tasks, refer to reference (e), Infantry Training and Readiness Manual.e. Related Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Title and Code. Tactical Ground Range Control Officer.f. Related Military Skill. NoneAll Marine officers, including warrant officers, are “of the line,” eligible to succeed to command if they are the next senior officer.However, due to the pattern and nature of their assignments, Marine Gunners are unlikely to be in a position to be assigned to lead task-organized or provisional units in combat; they are the only Gunner assigned at the Battalion (or higher) level, working directly for a lieutenant colonel (or higher) as the commander.A prudent commander does not send one of his most valued, one each and no others and no hope of getting another one in the foreseeable future, assets off on an ad hoc boondoggle, when he has 30+ trained infantry or intel captains or lieutenants in his battalion. That is what they are for….leading platoons, companies, raids, recons, etc.Now, can the Gunner be ordered off on a boondoggle, or some joint task force (where he will undoubtedly be outranked multiple grades, and therefore not be in command)?Yes, he is qualified to do that task, because he is an experienced company grade infantry officer.But….why? Why would that task be more important in a combat scenario than assisting and advising the battalion (regimental, divisional, MEU or MEF, etc.) commander in fire support, offensive and defensive operations, planning upcoming ops, responding to multiple (and often fast-moving and conflicting) orders and requests from higher/lower/adjacent commands, and advising subordinate commanders on “weaponeering”?Remember, the Gunner is a battalion (or higher!) level asset, not a common platoon commander…Advising and supporting their commander with all aspects of weaponeering is their primary purpose, not taking the place of an infantry lieutenant or captain on a patrol. If there is a special mission that is deemed “above” the best qualified infantry platoon in the battalion, then it is a mission for the battalion’s S-2/Intelligence Officer, as all USMC ground combat intel officers are dual-qualified infantry and intel officers, who also command the hand-picked battalion scout-sniper platoon.Or, it would be a mission for an attached or adjacent recon unit, that would have its own commanders.If you are asking, “Can a Marine Gunner take charge of a disparate group of headquarters and other Marines, and command them as a provisional rifle platoon”? Yes, but why? The battalion HQ has a dozen other captains and lieutenants, most of them infantry officers, and all of whom, infantry or not, are trained to take command of a provisional rifle platoon….Marine officers cannot graduate from their 6-month Basic Officer Course if they are incapable of tactically forming and leading a provisional rifle platoon….and all of whom — with their love and respect for their Gunner notwithstanding — outrank the Gunner.And the USMC is very careful to observe rank.Or, are you asking, “If a Marine infantry battalion was overrun in combat and it’s back broken, and it’s now every Marine for himself to escape and evade back to friendly territory, in some sort of apocalyptic story, can the Marine Gunner take charge of Marines he finds along the way back”?Then, again, yes. The Gunner is capable of doing that.But, in conclusion, I would suspect that in exceedingly few instances would the Gunner, a special one for one battalion-level (or higher!) asset, be detailed to lead or even accompany a random patrol. As we say, there are lots of lieutenants, and quite a few captains, they exist to lead Marines in all tasks, including patrols and random missions; that is their raison d’etre, as the Gunner’s raison d’etre is “weaponeering” and advising his commander.

Most of these answers are following a bit of a patriotic trend depending on what side of the pond you are on. So I am going to try and answer this by the numbers without patriotic bias affecting my answer.We are going to assume that neither will invoke Article 5. This would be tricky but with the latest political events regarding the UK and the EU who knows how that would play out. However NATO countries have gone to war with each other in the past without invoking Article 5 so there is precedent. (Greece and Turkey over Cyprus if you are curious)We are going to assume that Nukes will not be involved that just ruins this before we start and honestly that is just poor formSo our worldwide Battle Royale between the United Kingdom and Department of the Navy has begun.The attacker has the following assets around the world11 Carriers (CVN)10 Nimitz Class1 Gerald Ford Class22 Cruisers (CG)22 Ticonderoga Class68 Destroyers66 Arleigh Burke Class2 Zumwalt Class16 Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)7 Freedom Class9 Independence Class52 Attack Submarines (SSN)32 Los Angeles Class17 Virginia Class3 Seawolf Class4 Guided Missile Submarines (SSGN)4 Ohio Class9 Amphibious Assault Ships (LHA)8 Wasp Class1 America Class2 Amphibious Command Ships (LCC)2 Blue Ridge Class11 Amphibious Transport Docks (LPD)11 San Antonio Class12 Dock Landing Ships (LSD)8 Whidbey Island Class4 Harper's Ferry Class11 Mine Countermeasure Ships11 Avenger ClassTotal 218 Ships173 Capable of direct combat projection.Plus 3700 combat aircraft ranging from F-35s, F/A 18 Super Hornets, EA 18 Growlers, E-2 Hawkeyes, P8 and P3 patrol aircraft, SH-60 and MH 60 helicopters etc.Plus Naval Special Warfare, Seabees, and a thousand other units.This may sound like a lot but also remember the Department of the Navy has a second part. The United States Marine Corps.With 220 thousand Marines split between Active Duty and Reserves between the four MEFs which consist of a Marine Division , Marine Logistics Group, and Marine Air Wing our totals grow to218 Ships4800 Aircraft639,500 Sailors and MarinesSquaring off as the Defenders are Her Majesties Royal Navy, Royal Air Force, and the British Army.The Royal Navy1 Carrier1 Queen Elizabeth Class6 Destroyers6 Type 4513 Frigates13 Type 23 Class6 Attack Submarines3 Astute Class3 Trafalgar ClassThe Royal Air Force can add 832 AircraftThe British Army with Royal Marines added in can add roughly three combat divisions worth of manpower all told26 Combat Ships1006 Aircraft190,780 Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and MarinesNow comes the real stickler none of these numbers are going to reflect the biggest reality of all. That is maintenance, availability, and location.So in our scenario we will limit to what would be realistically deployable force allowed at one time.By stretching and surging and pulling from around the globe the US Navy could pull probably 80–90 combat vessels centered around 5 to 6 carrier strike groups and 3–4 Amphibious Strike Groups. The Marine Corps would probably be able to deploy the better part of 1 MEF aboard those Amphibious Vessels and stage the rest for reinforcements.Airpower would be limited to 5 to 6 enlarged Carrier Strike Wings and what could be crammed onto the LHAs.The Royal Navy would probably be able to field 17 or so Combat Vessels , I can't speak with any authority on readiness within the RAF or within the Army but I will give them the benefits of assuming around 60–80 percent.At this point the British are on the defensive. Realistically they would need to keep their aircraft and their ships close to home to protect their territory. Their SSNs are the single most effective hunters they have.The problem they have is low numbers. In this scenario the US can deploy around 34–36 SSNs of their own. Not to mention the squadrons of P3 and P8 search aircraft flying around the Atlantic searching for them. While the US Navy will suffer losses most likely including Carriers the reality is the Royal Navy will die a glorious and violent death. That is reality.After the sea threat is neutralized the next obstacle is the RAF. Well two SSGNs each carrying 154 tomahawks as well as up to 5 dozen surface vessels carrying a number of tomahawks themselves unleash a bombardment upon all airfields, radar installations, command and control posts, army bases, long stretches of highway etc. What's left of the RAF will then have to fight Carrier Strike Groups that can carry up to 90+ aircraft each. With E-2s watching the skies, EA-18 Growlers jamming away and FA-18s and F35s engaging Tornado, Typhoon, and a small number of F-35 aircraft. Again the RAF will be destroyed by pure numbers and destruction of their infrastructure.At this point the United States doesn't even need to invade by ground which will piss the Marines off to no end. With their military in ruins, their homes under attack, and their people trying to figure out how we came to this, I'd imagine the party in power in Parliament would be removed from power.The human cost would be rather staggering for both sides. With likely 1 if not 2 carriers sunk or damaged the US would probably expect upwards of 10+ thousand casualties and the UK would probably be facing larger numbers.The financial costs would be staggering for both sides and the problems that would arise around the world would be catastrophic. People on both sides would likely be trying to figure out what the hell happened.But the reality is that the United States would win. The reality is that the United States Military while not at the level of training and individual talent that the British Armed Forces are will outmatch them in size and shear firepower. There is no force Earth that can stand up to it.Honestly it's better to just stay friends and keep serving next to each other. I have plenty of Royal Marines, and Paras that I served next to in Afghanistan that I'd rather not see on the other end of a rifle.

Absolutely none; in fact, it would cost the taxpayers to do so.Not even counting administrative costs to disband the Corps, all of its functions would have to be absorbed by the other services.Since the Marine Corps is a naval service, contrary to the uninformed in “popular opinion land,” the logical service would be the Navy, not the Army, for the Corps to be “absorbed” by in such an unwise scenario. The reasons for this is because, again contra uninformed popular opinion, (1) the Marine Corps is NOT already part of the Navy, and (2) The Marine Corps is NOT a second “army.”The U.S. Marine Corps has always been a separate naval service from the U.S. Navy, and since 1947 co-equal to it, as well as the other services. The Corps has been, along with the Navy since 1834, one of the two naval services within the Department of the Navy. (Before 1834, while Marines most often, but not always, served with or under Navy command, statutorily Congress had not mandated which cabinet-level department, War or Navy, the Marine Corps was within.)Since Marines are not “in the Navy” and therefore are not “sailors,” the Corps has always maintained its own separate and distinct recruiting, entry-level training for enlisted members, specialized training for those commissioned as Officers of Marines, Marine Corps specific advanced training for noncommissioned officers, staff noncommissioned officers, warrant officers, and commissioned officers, distinctive uniforms and insignia, separate appearance and physical fitness standards, separate internal structure and unit organization schemes, and some distinctive weapons and equipment not used by the Navy (or any other service). The Corps also maintains separate manpower/human resources, promotion, re-enlistment, separation, retirement, and pay systems, from those of the Navy. In addition, the Marine Reserve is a separate organization from the Navy Reserve. I could go on, but perhaps now even the least informed reader will understand that the Marine Corps is a completely separate service than the Navy, and the administrative costs alone to even “simply merge” the Corps into the Navy would be highly cost ineffective. Also, unless the United States wishes to forfeit the tremendous advantage in worldwide combat capabilities for amphibious and expeditionary warfare that the Marine Corps provides, its demise would also be extremely cost inefficient.If the Navy were to “absorb” the Corps, it would then need to create another, extremely large “warfare community” to exist beside its surface warfare, submarine warfare, aviation warfare, and special warfare/special operations/EOD “communities.” So, in effect after all of the expense and “turbulence” of disbanding the Marine Corps, the Navy would end up having to create another “Marine Corps” within the Navy, manned by sailors and Navy officers who would still require the training, indoctrination, organization, and equipment already existing in the current Marine Corps. Because of the inherent differences in operating ships and ship-board combat systems, along with the unique training, maintenance, and logistical requirements to support a “navy” of several hundred ships, the new combined Navy-Marines would still require a full-set of “Marine” ground combat and ground logistical support organizations, schools, facilities, etc. In essence, the Marines would become a separate service within another separate service.When the Army Air Corps (AAC) became so large, distinct, and integral to modern warfare in 1942, that our nation’s military and political leaders wisely decided to elevate the AAC to the Army Air Forces (AAF) and make it co-equal to the Army Ground Forces (AGF), the historical antecedent is already in evidence as to why the Marine Corps has always been a separate service from either the U.S. Navy or the U.S. Army. Again, our military and political leaders, largely out of the wisdom gained in the Second World War, wisely chose to further elevate the AAF to a full, separate, and co-equal service status with the other services in 1947, with the creation of the U.S. Air Force (USAF).All four services then came under a new cabinet-level Department of Defense, with three sub-cabinet level service departments: Army (replacing War), Navy, including both the Navy and Marine Corps as not only co-equal (as were the AGF and AAF during WWII) but also as separate services, as the Marine Corps had always been, and as the new USAF then became with the creation of the Department of the Air Force. While the Departments of the Army and of the Air Force were single-service sub-cabinet level departments, the Department of the Navy remained as a dual-service (or even tri-service whenever the Coast Guard is transferred into it as was done during both world wars) department, but now also with sub-cabinet level status.Now, finally to address the proverbial “elephant in the room” question: “Well,” per those of the uninformed popular opinion persuasion, “Why can’t the Army just take over the functions of the Marine Corps?”Well, my dears and dearies, please go back and read all of the above monograph and then tell yourself, “Oh, that’s it, the Army is not a “naval” service!”Why, yes, Virginia, the U.S. Army has performed many amphibious landing operations, and Army troops and equipment can be, and are, transported on ships, and yes, the Army even owns a few ships and landing craft, and yes during World War II (but not since then) the Army owned more “watercraft” (which included thousands of pontoons, barges, and numerous types of miscellaneous small boats), and yes the U.S. Army performed more amphibious landings during World War II than did the Marine Corps, including all of them in the European, North African, Middle Eastern Theatre of Operations, and more than the Marine Corps in the Pacific Theatre of Operations, and yes the U.S. Army participated in the amphibious assault landings in the “largest amphibious landing in history” at Normandy, France on 6 June 1944, and yes there were Army troops (one regiment) that participated in the largest “Marine Corps led” (three Marine divisions) amphibious campaign—Iwo Jima, and yes, the largest amphibious assault in the Pacific Theatre, at Okinawa, involved more Army divisions (four), than Marine divisions (three). Whew! Alright, there I said it for you and you probably read something that you didn’t already know.Now, as Paul Harvey used to say, “Page two.”Besides the historical fact that the Marine Corps has been serving aboard Navy ships, not as “passengers” but rather as integral components of the ship’s company in “Marine Detachments,” providing internal and port-side security for the captain, officers, and the ship, used as “sharpshooters in the rigging” and as “boarding parties” and even as “prize crews” in battling, defeating, and seizing enemy vessels, and as the main body for amphibious raids and landings by individual ships detachments and the combined Marines of ships and squadrons into companies and battalions, and as the nucleus for the formation of “naval infantry” regiments and brigades when combined with sailors for service ashore, the U.S. Marine Corps remains as a naval service with extremely strong ties historically and operationally to the Navy, and still provides embarked Marines aboard U.S. Navy vessels 24/7/365, around the world.The Army does not do this. In fact, as it is currently trained, organized, equipped, doctrinally focused, and statutorily mandated, the Army is incapable of performing the functions of the U.S. Marine Corps. Could the Army, well of course they could, if they were properly “trained, organized, equipped, doctrinally focused, and statutorily mandated.” So, could the Air Force, or the Coast Guard (or the Navy, as discussed above), if properly “trained, organized, equipped, doctrinally focused, and statutorily mandated,”The U.S. Marine Corps currently contains a total of approximately 221,500 active duty and reserve Marines. The Operating Forces of the Marine Corps are organized into the Fleet Marine Forces (FMF), Marine Corps Security Forces, Marine Corps Embassy Security Forces, and Marine Corps Special Operations Forces. the FMF (the largest component of the Operating Forces) are organized into three army tactical corps-equivalent commands called Marine Expeditionary Forces (MEF), plus there is an additional equivalent in the Marine Forces Reserve. Each corps-level MEF (I, II, & III) contains a Marine Division of over 20,000 Marine ground combat troops and Navy personnel (yes, the Navy provides all health care and religious program services support to the Marine Corps) providing infantry, reconnaissance, artillery, assault amphibian, tank , light armored reconnaissance, combat engineer, and headquarters support, combined with a Marine Aircraft Wing (a unique, Marine Corps division-level equivalent air combat organization) containing about 300 combat aircraft and capable of performing all six functions of Marine Aviation; a Marine Logistics Group (another unique Marine Corps brigade-level organization) consisting of several logistics regiments and separate specialized logistics battalions of Marine and Navy (Medical and Dental battalions), combat logistics Marines and sailors; and finally a MEF Headquarters and Information Group (yet another unique Marine Corps regimental-sized organization) consisting of several battalions of command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition, reconnaissance, law enforcement, and liaison troops.While the Army has many of these types, or equivalent types, of units, the Army does not possess the kinds of units ground, logistics, or air (especially Marine Corps tactical fixed-wing aviation) that are optimized for use in naval amphibious/expeditionary operations and that are scalable down to the platoon or detachment-level and able to be combined in Marine Air Ground Task Forces (MAGTF) from the individual battalion or squadron-level throughout the entire range of MAGTFs.The Marine Corps routinely organizes and deploys for combat in MAGTFs ranging from a battalion or small regimental-sized Special MAGTF, to a standard small brigade-sized Marine Expeditionary Unit (24/7/365 deployed aboard Navy amphibious warships), through the small division-sized Marine Expeditionary Brigade of up to 14,500 Marine and sailors, and finally the full corps-sized MEFs of the FMF.The Army has nothing like MAGTFs and if the Marine Corps were to be disbanded, then the Army would have to create them—except they still couldn’t unless they took tactical fixed-wing aircraft (as well as other assets, such as air command and control units and fixed-wing capable aviation support units) from the Air Force. Oh, but wait, Air Force assets are not shipboard capable or always expeditionary compatible—they’re used to operating off long paved runways and out of permanent or semi-permanent facilities, not tents and CONEX boxes. Also, currently, all U.S. Marine Corps pilots, aircrew, and ground support personnel are fully-trained Marines, able to serve as basic riflemen to reinforce, augment, or supplement ground combat units, form provisional infantry units, and provide for their own ground base defense. Besides that, all Marine Corps officers, including pilots and flight officers, are qualified as rifle platoon commanders and have trained with their ground combat officer counterparts in basic infantry platoon, company, and battalion tactics and operations—Air Force officers and enlisted personnel are not so trained. Oh, so I guess we’ll just have to make the Navy provide that support—but wait they will be Navy pilots and aircrew and they don’t have a clue about ground combat (they also don’t have the ground combat training of Marines, officer and enlisted) and besides they are trained, organized, and equipped to operate aboard ships and from permanent Naval Air Stations (very similar to Air Force Bases), not from austere forward operating bases. And we’ll still need the Air Force to provide the Army with air liaison officers, and forward air controllers, and weather observers and forecasters because Army ground and aviation units use Air Force people for those things, but they will have no familiarity with naval aviation or ship board operations. Oh, and what about integrating fires with Navy surface ships, Air Force and Army people don’t do that. Oh, we’ll just use the Marine Corps Air Naval Gunfire Liaison Companies for that, but, oh no! We foolishly disbanded them with the rest of the Marine Corps!Which Army units would be trained and equipped with amphibious assault vehicles and be required to keep all their weapons, supplies, and equipment packed, weighed, organized, marked, and labeled for on-load into a variety of amphibious warships, not to mention aircraft, rail, and trucks? How would the Army, manage to provide the units and a correct mix of forces to replace the MAGTFs and maintain the rotational deployment schedule of MEUs with the Navy? Every Marine Corps unit has an NCO, or an officer full-time employed as an “embarkation NCO” or “embarkation officer,” in fact embarkation is so important in the Corps, that there is even a warrant officer (a specialized technical management officer) MOS specifically for embarkation. But with the disbanding of the Corps, all that “corporate” knowledge will have vanished….Well, I could go on but amphibious and expeditionary warfare hinges on “naval logistics” by both Marines and sailors alike and involves intimate knowledge and experience with not only Marine ground combat but also Marine air combat forces, tactics, operations. and requirements as well as ships, aircraft, and even trucks and trains. Could the Army perform the Marine Corps’ functions? Yes, but not now, as they are currently “trained, organized, equipped, doctrinally focused, and statutorily mandated,” the Army cannot.Besides 10 U.S. Code § 5063 (a) says:“The Marine Corps, within the Department of the Navy, shall be so organized as to include not less than three combat divisions and three air wings, and such other land combat, aviation, and other services as may be organic therein. The Marine Corps shall be organized, trained, and equipped to provide fleet marine forces of combined arms, together with supporting air components, for service with the fleet in the seizure or defense of advanced naval bases and for the conduct of such land operations as may be essential to the prosecution of a naval campaign. In addition, the Marine Corps shall provide detachments and organizations for service on armed vessels of the Navy, shall provide security detachments for the protection of naval property at naval stations and bases, and shall perform such other duties as the President may direct. However, these additional duties may not detract from or interfere with the operations for which the Marine Corps is primarily organized.”Neither the Army nor the Navy (and certainly not the Air Force) have even an inkling of desire to have to provide the statutorily mandated:Fleet Marine ForcesNaval Security Forces, or“… Such other duties as the President may direct.”Disband the Marine Corps? An exceptionally foolish and costly idea.Semper Fidelis