# New US Chairman JCS



## tomahawk6 (20 Apr 2005)

The new Chairman is USMC Gen Peter Pace, the first Marine Chairman in history.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (20 Apr 2005)

As much as I'd love to see this happen, Tomahawk your information is not correct at this time.  The Washington Post ran an article on Apr. 10th that stated Gen. Pace would be next Chairman JCS.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2642-2005Apr19.html

I just called the Chairman JCS' Public Affiars Office at (703) 697-4272 http://www.dtic.mil/jcs/ and General Myers is still the Chairman of the JCS.   His term doesn't expire until September and no successor has been named despite the article in the Washington Post.

General Pace is currently the Vice Chairman JCS and as capable an officer he is, has not been named General Myer's successor.

Just wanted to set the record straight and it wouldn't be the first time that the press was wrong if Gen. Pace is not named as the next Chairman JCS.


----------



## tomahawk6 (20 Apr 2005)

The President will name Pace as the next Chairman of the JCS. Admiral Giambasti will be named as Vice Chairman. Believe me I am correct.

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-797928.php


----------



## muskrat89 (22 Apr 2005)

The President made the announcement today...


----------



## Matt_Fisher (22 Apr 2005)

Roger that.  I was wrong.

Congratulations to General Pace.


----------



## Infanteer (24 Apr 2005)

Cool - good for the Corps; they've really done a good job of distinguishing themselves as a separate and unique part of the US Military.  Reading about the Pentagon battles the Corps has had in the last 50 years over representation, this is definitely an achievement.

Semper Fi.


----------



## tomahawk6 (24 Apr 2005)

The USMC is not a seperate service but part of the USN. Its too bad they are treated like a seperate service.


----------



## Infanteer (24 Apr 2005)

Actually, if I read my chart right, they are a part of the Department of the Navy, of which the USN and the USMC are seperate entites.  Am I correct?


----------



## tomahawk6 (24 Apr 2005)

Thats what the USMC want people to believe. They are part of the USN and not seperate. Thats why they are called the Navy-Marine Corps team. Their medics are Navy corpsmen. Their Chaplains are Naval officers.

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/people/secnav/responsi.html

The last sentence says it all : "The Department of the Navy consists of two uniformed Services: the United States Navy and the United States Marine Corps."


----------



## Matt_Fisher (24 Apr 2005)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The USMC is not a seperate service but part of the USN. Its too bad they are treated like a seperate service.



The United States Marine Corps is a separate service, as the United States Navy is a separate service.  They do share the same bureaucratic parent though, the Department of the Navy.

When a person enlists or is granted a commission in the Marine Corps, it specifies the United States Marine Corps on it, not "Marine Corps of the United States Navy".  The commandant of the Marine Corps does not answer to the Chief of Naval Operations, etc.  The Marine Corps and Navy work in concert to achieve the defense policy goals as set forth by the Secretary of Defense and under him, the Secretary of the Navy.


----------



## tomahawk6 (24 Apr 2005)

The Marine Corps is not a seperate service if it were it would have its own secretary/department. The Marine Corps has historically been part of the Navy from its inception in the revolutionary war. It IS part of the Department of the Navy as I previously stated. Hence the Navy Chaplains, Navy doctors/corpsmen ect.


----------



## Infanteer (24 Apr 2005)

Sounds like you guys need to Unify like the CF, then you can all be members of the *American Forces*, you can all wear the same Green jumper, and Colonels will captain ships.... ;D


----------



## tomahawk6 (24 Apr 2005)

We were headed down that road once. Fortunately it got killed. Instead we have taken jointness to the point where
unification may once again rear its ugly head. I can see where unification is good for smaller militaries where they can share the same support/administrative functions at the expense of some traditions.


----------



## Infanteer (24 Apr 2005)

I don't think Unification needs to come at the expense of traditions - unfortunately, ours was.  I think it is all about how the boxes at the top are organized.


----------



## tomahawk6 (24 Apr 2005)

The only unification I want to see is the Air Force becoming part of the Army again.


----------



## PJ D-Dog (24 Apr 2005)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The Marine Corps is not a seperate service if it were it would have its own secretary/department. The Marine Corps has historically been part of the Navy from its inception in the revolutionary war. It IS part of the Department of the Navy as I previously stated. Hence the Navy Chaplains, Navy doctors/corpsmen ect.



I beg to differ on this.  As was mentioned earlier, the Marine Corps is it's own branch of service.  Many people confuse that fact due to the Marines having evolved from the Navy some two hundred and twenty plus years ago.  At one time, the Marines were considered the soldiers of the sea and were part of the Navy.  As time progressed, the Corps grew into its own and became an independent branch of service.

It is true that we use Navy Chaplains and Navy medical services, but these are historic links which have survived to this day.  Both the Marine Corps and Navy work together unlike any other of the branches of service, which may be the cause for some people to not be able to differenciate between the two branches of service or understand the relationship.  In simple terms, our relationship to the Navy is like this:  We do the fighting, they give us a ride in their ships and then patch us up physically and spiritually when needed.

Title 10 U.S.C. controls everything pertaining to the military including establishments.  It is true that the Commandant reports direclty to the Secretary of the Navy.  Again, these are historic ties.  The Commandant does not report to the CNO under any circumstances.  The Commandant is appointed by the President and not the CNO.  If the Marine Corps was under the Navy, then the chain of command would fall under the Navy as well but it doesn't.

If the Navy and the Marine Corps were the same branch of service, there would be no difference in boot camp for enlisted Marines/Sailors.  They would all go to the same place.  That is not the case.  Although Marines and Sailors are realted, they certainly did not have the same parents.

Now to loop everything back, yes the Marine Corps falls under the department of the Navy but it is an independent branch of service.  Please do not confuse being part of one deparmtent for administrative purposes with not being a branch of service in its own right.  Again, for more info, just go to Title 10 U.S.C.

PJ D-Dog


----------



## tomahawk6 (24 Apr 2005)

It is quite plain on the web site of the SECNAV - that the Navy and Marines are under his jurisdiction. It is true that the Marines are a uniformed service, but are not seperate. In fact last year a congressman was going to present legislation to make the Marines our 4th service seperate from the USN. So far that hasnt happened. Until the new MARPAT the USN and USMC field uniform was the same including the distinctive Marine cap.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (24 Apr 2005)

tomahawk,

I don't understand your reasoning.  Yes, the Marine Corps and the United States Navy are grouped together as part of the Department of the Navy, however they are both separate services.  The Department of the Navy is a government department and is not a service itself.  It just happens to have jurisdiction over 2 separate services rather than the Department of the Army, which oversees the Army solely.

If your rationale of having similar combat uniforms is applied, then the US Air Force and US Army are the same service because they both wear the same BDU (?)

For a detailed view of the Marine Corps' role in the Department of Defense and the Department of the Navy, do a 'google' on "National Security Act of 1947"

From the History and Museums Division, United States Marine Corps
Historical Documents, Orders and Speeches

"The National Security Act of 1947
Congressional Act Reaffirming the Marine Corps as a
Separate Service and Prescribing its Duties and Functions"

http://hqinet001.hqmc.usmc.mil/HD/Historical/speeches.htm


Title: National Security Act of 1947

Category: Congressional Act  
Author/Presenter: U.S. Congress

Date: 1947


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Excerpts of Public Law 253-80th Congress, as amended by Public Law 36-81st
Congress and Public Law 216-81st Congress pertaining to the Department of the
Navy and the Marine Corps

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

Sec. 206. (a) The term â Å“Department of the Navyâ ? as used in this Act shall be construed to mean the Department of the Navy at the seat of government; the headquarters, United States Marine Corps; the entire operating force of the United States Navy, including naval aviation, and of the United States Marine Corps, including the reserve components of such forces; all field activities, headquarters, forces, bases, installations, activities, and functions under the control or supervision of the Department of the Navy; and the United States Coast Guard when operating as a part of the Navy pursuant to law.

(b) In general the United States Navy, within the Department of the Navy, shall include naval combat and services forces and such aviation as may be organic therein. It shall be organized, trained, and equipped primarily for prompt and sustained combat incident to operations at sea. It shall be responsible for the preparation of naval forces necessary for the effective prosecution of war except as otherwise assigned, and, in accordance with integrated joint mobilization plans, for the expansion of the peacetime components of the Navy to meet the needs of war.

All naval aviation shall be integrated with the naval service as part thereof within the Department of the Navy. Naval aviation shall consist of combat and service and training forces, and shall include land-based naval aviation, air transport essential for naval operations, all air weapons and air techniques involved in the operations and activities of the United States Navy, and the entire remainder of the aeronautical organization of the United States Navy, together with the personnel necessary therefore.

The Navy shall be generally responsible for naval reconnaissance, antisubmarine warfare, and protection of shipping. 

The Navy shall develop aircraft, weapons, tactics, technique, organization and equipment of naval combat and service elements; matters of joint concern as to these functions shall be coordinated between the Army, the Air Force, and the Navy.

(c) The United States Marine Corps, within the Department of the Navy, shall include land combat and service forces and such aviation 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. It shall be the duty of the Marine Corps to develop, in coordination with the Army and the Air Force, those phases of amphibious operations which pertain to the tactics, technique, and equipment employed by landing forces. 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: Provided, That such additional duties shall not detract from or interfere with the operations for which the Marine Corps is primarily organized. The Marine Corps shall be responsible, in accordance with integrated joint mobilization plans, for the expansion of peacetime components of the Marine Corps to meet the needs of war.

http://hqinet001.hqmc.usmc.mil/HD/Historical/Docs_Speeches/Nationalsecurityact1947.htm


----------



## tomahawk6 (24 Apr 2005)

You reinforced my statement Marine.

"Sec. 206. (a) The term â Å“Department of the Navyâ ? as used in this Act shall be construed to mean the Department of the Navy at the seat of government; the headquarters, United States Marine Corps; the entire operating force of the United States Navy, including naval aviation, and of the United States Marine Corps, including the reserve components of such forces; all field activities, headquarters, forces, bases, installations, activities, and functions under the control or supervision of the Department of the Navy; and the United States Coast Guard when operating as a part of the Navy pursuant to law."

"(c) The United States Marine Corps, within the Department of the Navy, shall include land combat and service forces and such aviation 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. It shall be the duty of the Marine Corps to develop, in coordination with the Army and the Air Force, those phases of amphibious operations which pertain to the tactics, technique, and equipment employed by landing forces. 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: Provided, That such additional duties shall not detract from or interfere with the operations for which the Marine Corps is primarily organized. The Marine Corps shall be responsible, in accordance with integrated joint mobilization plans, for the expansion of peacetime components of the Marine Corps to meet the needs of war."

Also the USAF is controlled by the Department of the Air Force and the Army by the Dept of the Army. Were the Marines to be truely seperate they would have a Department of the Marine Corps. It used to be that a USMC General would never be Chairman because the USMC IS not seperate like the other services. This arrangement has actually given the Navy 2 voices on the JCS. By naming Pace Chairman the USMC is raised to the same level as the other services.


----------



## Infanteer (25 Apr 2005)

So, one argument is determining the definition of separate by "Department" (ie: if the service has its own government department) - since the USMC is part of the Department of the Navy, it is assumed to be a part of the Navy.   Is it necessary to have a "Department"?   There is no "Department of the FBI", it falls under a larger organization does it not?   Just a question (I honestly don't know) - is the Coast Guard considered "separate service" - do they have their own Department (I don't believe so)?   When they come under the Department of Defence in wartime, are they put under the control of the Department of the Navy?   If so, are the considered separate from the Navy or are they still recognized as the Coast Guard?

The other argument sees separate as defined by "Branch" (in that the *"It shall be the duty of the Marine Corps to develop, in coordination with the Army and the Air Force"* and *"provide detachments and organizations for service on armed vessels of the Navy."*)

Sticky semantics really - I can see the argument that the USMC is a separate service in that it recruits, trains, and generates its own forces (except for some roles traditionally provided by the Navy) and has its own distinct identity and history.   This is more then the Canadian Army does and I believe it is "separate".   Where would the legal definition of "separate" lie?   In Canada, recruits are commonly trained in one area and we only have 1 department, that of National Defence.   However, I think "Army", "Navy" and "Air Force" are enshrined in legislation as separate entities within the Canadian Forces (I believe this is when we got the distinctive dress uniforms back).

In any case, it can positively stated that the USMC is a *distinct* entity of the US Armed Forces.   General Pace's appointment has now affirmed that this separateness is on an equal level (which was the point of my post that started this argument).

Separate or distinct or whatever, we all get the job done.

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## tomahawk6 (25 Apr 2005)

But there is a school of thought that with 2 seats on the JCS [soon to be 4] is undue influence of one department over the other two. Just a few years ago I saw too much USAF influence at the expense of the Army hehe. Now we will have in addition to the CNO and Marine Commandant a Marine Chairman and a Navy Vice Chairman.

The Coast Guard is part of the Department of Homeland Security and is not represented on the JCS.


----------



## Infanteer (25 Apr 2005)

Ahh, the traditional Strong Service vs. Unified Command debate - this has been a see-saw tug of war in Canada for the last 40-odd years.... :warstory:


----------



## tomahawk6 (25 Apr 2005)

The bureaucratic inner workings are a sight to behold. Ultimately its all about money and who gets what. The USN/USAF big ticket items dwarf the biggest of the Army projects. No matter how joint you become it boils down to parachiolism.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (25 Apr 2005)

I don't think we have to worry about General Pace putting the Marine Corps' agenda ahead of anybody else.  The Marine Corps has been making do with less than any of the other services since its inception.  Even though we are part of the Department of the Navy, history shows that on many occasions, the Marine Corps has been treated as the bastard step-child and has been tried to be shuffled into the Army on several occasions.  Ironically, the US Navy itself has been a proponent of such a restructure in the past.  Many senior Naval officers saw the Marine Corps as a leech to the Navy's budget.  They'd rather have spent more money on their blue water, aviation, etc. capabilities than a small force of troops that were outgrowing their limited role as force protection for naval vessels.  It was through the work of Marine Corps officers, not Navy officers, that the Marine Corps's place as a separate service, albeit smaller in scope to the Army, Navy and Air Force was reaffirmed on several occasions up into the 1950's.

The Marine Corps is always asking itself, "Why do we need a Marine Corps?"  If we find no relevance, then we should be abolished.  We haven't found that reason yet and I would venture to say that it will be a long time before one is found.  The reason is that the Marine Corps is an extremely fluid organization, capable of adapting itself to new missions and embraces the organizational changes necessary to accomplish those missions somewhat more readily than the other services.


----------

