Gen David Berger, the new U.S. Marines commandant, speaks during a press conference in Tokyo, Wednesday. Photo: AP/Yuri Kageyama
politics

U.S. Marines chief acknowledges worries on Japan-S Korean ties

49 Comments
By YURI KAGEYAMA

Gen David Berger, the new U.S. Marines commandant, acknowledged Wednesday that he is concerned about deteriorating relations between Japan and South Korea, both key regional allies, but expressed hopes politicians would work out a resolution.

Berger stressed that Japan and Korea have common interests despite their differences, such as the threat posed by China and pursuing stability in Asia.

"I'm optimistic it will get worked out," said Berger, during his first trip to Japan after being appointed to his post.

Besides meetings with Japanese government and military officials, his visit also includes going to the southern islands of Okinawa, where most of the U.S. forces here are based. He heads to South Korea later this week.

Bilateral relations worsened after Tokyo removed South Korea's preferential trade status in early July. South Korea has decided to do the same to Japan, with the new rules taking effect in September.

Seoul sees Japan's move as retaliation for South Korean court rulings that Japanese companies compensate South Koreans forced into labor during World War II. Japan says it is a security issue.

Berger declined to comment on what might happen if South Korea makes good on the threat to end an agreement with Japan to share military intelligence, called the General Security of Military Information Agreement, or GSOMIA, which went into effect in 2016. He said such sharing was important from a military standpoint, and discussions were ongoing outside the military.

"I never said I was not concerned. We are. What I did say is we have a common focus on an assessment of what the near and long-term threats are. But absolutely we should all be concerned when any part of any alliance has some challenges," said Berger.

"I am confident that the right leaders are talking. I am confident that we all share a common view of the threat to stability in this region."

While in Okinawa, Berger will go to Henoko, where a U.S. Marine air base is being built on a coastal landfill. The Henoko base, decades in the making and backed by the Japanese government, would replace a base that's considered noisy and dangerous and is in a crowded residential area of Okinawa.

Many residents want the base moved completely off Okinawa, and its new governor, Denny Tamaki, was elected last year while pushing that demand.

Berger played down worries about delays and said construction was going smoothly, while stopping short of giving a detailed timeline.

He said he earlier checked out the construction of a Marines facility in U.S. Pacific territory of Guam, where some of the Marines from Japan will be transferred.

"I think the progress is solid," he said, adding that the overall plan to begin the moves in the early 2020s is "on track."

Japan sees the U.S. as its most important ally. Berger said the military of the two nations work closely together.

"This is the most consequential region for us. Our alliance with Japan is an essential part of that," he said.

© Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.


49 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

Berger stressed that Japan and Korea have common interests despite their differences, such as the threat posed by China and pursuing stability in Asia.

By all means please go to South Korea General and stress this point to them. They seem to think that hating Japan, an allied nation, is somehow more important.

10 ( +14 / -4 )

Moon's chief concern is the unification of South and North Korea. He is not much interested in relations with U.S. and Japan. U.S. Forces in Korea are destined to withdraw when his purpose of unification realizes.

10 ( +11 / -1 )

My first impression at the picture of Gen. Berger:

.One: Why is he in camouflage clothes as if on a battle ground.

Two: Doesn't this show the Marines are a service completely independent of the Navy? 

If so, how would he interpret Article 6 of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty which stipulates "the United States of America is granted the use by its land, air and naval forces of facilities and areas in Japan."? The Japanese version, which has an equal legal force as the English one, says the "naval forces" are none other than the "Navy".

-13 ( +0 / -13 )

.One: Why is he in camouflage clothes as if on a battle ground.

Because it is the normal duty uniform. Just because you don't have an understanding of military regulations doesn't make it some sort of mystery.

Two: Doesn't this show the Marines are a service completely independent of the Navy?

Not this again. The Marines fall under the Department of the Navy, whether you like it or not. It's a fact.

16 ( +16 / -0 )

What is the purpose of this article? U.S. military promotion? I can't see anything for Berger or the marines to be concerned about with regard to Japan-Korea relations in this little kerfluffle. I will take this opportunity to say however, GO HOME! And take your war toys with you!

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

Extanker,

The Marines fall under the Department of the Navy.

The fact that the Marines are administered by the Department of the Navy, an executive organization headed by a civilian chief, doesn't tell the Marines are an arm of the Navy, a military service. According to 10 U.S. Code (Sections 5001 and 5061) and Navy Regulations Section 0204-2, the Navy and Marine Corps are military organizations or services independent of each other

Of course, you can ignore Article 6 of the said treaty and have the Marines be stationed in Japan, the bulk of which are in Okinawa. But if you do, the bilateral treaty becomes waste paper in no time, and so not only the Marines but also the Army, the Navy and the Air Force are all stationed here as WW II occupation forces.

Japan, especially Okinawa, is still under U.S. occupation. Period.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

Berger declined to comment on what might happen if South Korea makes good on the threat to end an agreement with Japan to share military intelligence

World War III no doubt...

Many residents want the base moved completely off Okinawa, and its new governor, Denny Tamaki, was elected last year while pushing that demand.

Yes move away from Okinawa and get rid of the 88 other US-only military facilities scattered around Japan as well.

"This is the most consequential region for us. Our alliance with Japan is an essential part of that,"

Instead of alliance I would rather say occupation but you know tomato potato...

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

One: Why is he in camouflage clothes as if on a battle ground.

Two: Doesn't this show the Marines are a service completely independent of the Navy? 

what kind of a question is that? Talk about disconnect.... He is on duty, as the Commandant of the USMC. He must be the new CMC they were talking about from the recon community, I see a scuba bubble and jump wings

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Is this really news? What this guy thinks?.......Are we kidding here?

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

I doubt GSOMIA is very important for Japan as many important information of missiles usually come from the US military. Japan has now 7 spy satellites but S Korea has no spy satellite over N Korea. Why Japan needs to depend on GSOMIA? Can S Korea get top secret information from someone in N Korea?

7 ( +7 / -0 )

In regards to GSOMIA importance to Japan, look no further than the 2 firings from NK on July 25th.

http://www.chosunonline.com/site/data/html_dir/2019/07/27/2019072780007.html

「2発とも600キロ」 また修正発表した合参…GSOMIAで日本から情報提供

"Both missiles traveled 600 km" Another correction by Joint chiefs of staff. Information provided by GSOMIA from Japan.

Korea’s military intelligence (incompetence) at full display.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

TheLongTerme

what kind of a question is that? Talk about disconnect..

The general made a trip to Japan as a kind of courtesy call on the occasion of his promotion to the top of the Marine Corps. Was he engaged in a field activity when he was conferred a promotion and didn't have time to change clothes to make Japan the destination of  his first overseas trip after the promotion?

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

The general made a trip to Japan as a kind of courtesy call on the occasion of his promotion to the top of the Marine Corps. Was he engaged in a field activity when he was conferred a promotion and didn't have time to change clothes to make Japan the destination of his first overseas trip after the promotion?

He is in his official capacity as CMC, thus not in civilian attire. What are you talking about? A visit from the CMC is like a visit from the pope, he would never show up in civilian attire. what kind of message would that send? damn dude, grow a brain already

6 ( +6 / -0 )

I dont know the psychological term for it, unless its a kind of cognitive dissonance but I see so many people comment with authority on a subject, without any connection or experience, but they use their filter, from whatever source or feeling they have, to make the comment, and then just continue to argue their position. You either know or you dont, I mean, damn!

4 ( +4 / -0 )

It's funny how his picture is eclipsed by an even larger chunk of meat right below it (at least in my browser).

Is that what Berger is now, the fresh meat delivery guy in Japan?

Japan sees the U.S. as its most important ally. 

Says who, the Marine corp? It's not exactly a voluntary relationship that was entered into willingly.

The guys who run the protection racket aren't one's allies, they are just the biggest and closest threat.

Therefore, "Japan sees the U.S. as its biggest and closest threat" would be more true.

FYI, who decides who gets to share intelligence or not is WAY above the paygrade of the dreamers saying SK will stop sharing intelligence.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

The fact that the Marines are administered by the Department of the Navy, an executive organization headed by a civilian chief, doesn't tell the Marines are an arm of the Navy, a military service. According to 10 U.S. Code (Sections 5001 and 5061) and Navy Regulations Section 0204-2, the Navy and Marine Corps are military organizations or services independent of each other

Of course, you can ignore Article 6 of the said treaty and have the Marines be stationed in Japan, the bulk of which are in Okinawa. But if you do, the bilateral treaty becomes waste paper in no time, and so not only the Marines but also the Army, the Navy and the Air Force are all stationed here as WW II occupation forces.

Japan, especially Okinawa, is still under U.S. occupation. Period.

Everything you’ve typed here is still wrong. Period.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

extanker,

Everything you’ve typed here is still wrong. Period.

You aren't refuting my argument logically. You're simply spitting your frustration out into the air. How would you defend your position that the Marine Corps is part of the Navy when 10 U.S. Code (Sections 5001 and 5061) and Navy Regulations Section 0204-2, the Navy and Marine Corps say otherwise?

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

they were once an independent force but latter became part of the Navy. The Navy has many ships they operate that support Marines, such as the MEUs and the hover craft. The air wing has Navy chiefs running some of the sections. The official USMC logo specifically says "Dept of the Navy" They are intertwined at many levels. Does the CMC answer to the CNO? I imagine he does.

Nobody needs to argue with you, you got your mind made up about something you know nothing about. Go join and stand on the yellow foot prints, do your tour or be quite about it already

4 ( +6 / -2 )

S. Korea is not good a good neighbor or responsible ally.

Their hate towards Japan goes beyond the US alliance.

Dum move by S. Korea by getting out of the intelligence agreement with Japan which S. Korea benefited the most.

Japan please stand up to this crazy country called S. Korea. They are the definition of a troll.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Moon announced the termination of GSOMIA.

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/08/22/national/politics-diplomacy/south-korea-japan-intelligence-sharing-pact-gsomia/

Seoul to end key intel pact with Tokyo

In a stunning move that could further upend already fraying ties between Japan and South Korea, Seoul on Thursday announced that it would scrap a key intelligence-sharing pact with Tokyo, with the South’s presidential Blue House saying in a statement that it did not meet Seoul’s “national interests” to maintain the deal amid the intensifying spat between the two neighbors.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

TheLongTermer,

they were once an independent force but latter became part of the Navy.

No, you are wrong. Historically, the Marines started as a cog of the Navy for a hand-to-hand combat or for expeditionary purposes. 

Today, though, the Navy and the Marine Corps can be said to be separate services for the reasons: (1) They are defined as such in U.S. Code 10 Section 5001; (2) they have independent chains of command with respect to each other; (3) different systems of rank names; (4) their top brass participate in the Joint Chiefs of Staff on a par with generals from other services..

(4) is very important. The current chair of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff is held by a Marine general. How can he preside over other chiefs of staff from the Army, the Navy and the Air Force if the Marine Corps is subordinate to the Navy.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

The U.S. Marines contribute very little to the defense of Japan or S.K. The U.S. Air Force, Navy and Army are the major players in the defense of Japan and S.K. with the Marines being like the water boys and the people who wash the jock straps of the main players. If all of the U.S. Marines left Japan tomorrow it would have very little effect on the U.S. Military's ability to defend Japan.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

japan4lifeToday  12:06 am JST

The U.S. Marines contribute very little to the defense of Japan or S.K. 

Spoken like a true military expert. LOL

0 ( +3 / -3 )

OssanAmerica,

U.S. Army Special Forces stationed on Okinawa from 1967 to 1968, Stationed in Vietnam from 1969 to 1970. Worked as a civilian on U.S. Military Bases on Okinawa from 1971 until I retired in 2012. Have been inside every U.S. Military and JSDF Facility on Okinawa.

How about you??

0 ( +2 / -2 )

.....“I don’t think a lot of western analysts realize that the S Korea left doesn’t share the GSOMIA assumption that Japan is a partner and NK an opponent,” tweeted Robert E. Kelly, a political science professor at Pusan National University. “To the left here, it’s the opposite. The world is now learning just how sharply polarized South Korea is over Japan and North Korea.”

Either way, the biggest losers may be the South Koreans.

“Not renewing GSOMIA is a stunningly stupid decision by South Korea that will hurt itself more than anyone else,” tweeted Mintaro Oba, a speechwriter at West Wing Writers and a former Korea desk officer at the State Department. “Seoul will pay a very grave price for this in Washington. It is not in keeping with a constructive approach to the U.S.-Korea alliance.”

And the biggest winner is likely to be North Korea.....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/south-korea-axes-pact-to-share-military-intelligence-with-japan/2019/08/22/fe57061c-c4be-11e9-8bf7-cde2d9e09055_story.html?noredirect=on

It's their own demise.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

If I had to chose between than the incessant whining from South Korea and Japan's I-Didn't-Do-Itism,

"I choose not to run."

The ROK, Japan and the US have done remarkably well under the status quo.

The two main structural problems with the over 65 year-old status quo, however, are:

1) Korea remains divided. I don't care who you are or where you come from, anyone with scintilla of patriotism or national pride will find that foul.

That puts South Korean interests at odds with Japan and the US. For Japan and the US, the status quo can and should continue another 65 years. For South Korea, yeah, nah. That ain't happening.

2) The whole shebang is centered on the US,. THe San Francisco System, the "Hub and Spokes," is a network of bilateral alliances between the US  others with - the US s as a 'hub', and Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Australia as 'spokes."

With the United States as the "hub" and no apparent connections between the "spokes" allowed the U.S to exercise effective control over the smaller allies of the East Asia. That worked when South Korea and Taiwan were weak. Now they are not.

And so, the is no  multilateralsecurity architecture in the region like NATO.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@voiceofokinawa

You aren't refuting my argument logically. You're simply spitting your frustration out into the air. How would you defend your position that the Marine Corps is part of the Navy when 10 U.S. Code (Sections 5001 and 5061) and Navy Regulations Section 0204-2, the Navy and Marine Corps say otherwise?

I don't need to, your argument has been refuted by multiple people the dozens of times you try to make it.

But here you go. You are wrong because the US Department of Defense says so.

https://www.defense.gov/explore/story/Article/1763150/why-are-marines-part-of-the-navy/

"Why Are Marines Part of the Navy?"

Posting military regulations or chain of command structures that clearly don't understand is irrelevant. See that website? defense.gov. That's the end of the argument.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

...."The Department of Defense expresses our strong concern and disappointment that the Moon Administration has withheld its renewal of the Republic of Korea's General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA) with Japan," Pentagon spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Dave Eastburn said in a statement...

https://www.newsnation.in/world-news/us-expresses-strong-concern-after-south-korea-scraps-japan-intel-sharing-pact-article-234987.html

Somebody in the past argued that U.S. would direct their concern and disappointment to Japan as opposed to Korea. There goes that argument.

Meanwhile, FM Kono Statement

https://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/press/danwa/page1_000873.html

Not even a hint to Korea to reconsider. Instead, Kono states that the Japanese government opposes Korean's position on its decision based on Japan's recent changes export control .

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The U.S. Marines contribute very little to the defense of Japan or S.K. The U.S. Air Force, Navy and Army are the major players in the defense of Japan and S.K. with the Marines being like the water boys and the people who wash the jock straps of the main players. If all of the U.S. Marines left Japan tomorrow it would have very little effect on the U.S. Military's ability to defend Japan.

Ok, I don't quite agree with this, but as an Army vet, it is too damn funny to downvote! :-D

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@voiceofokinawa

they were once an independent force but latter became part of the Navy.

No, you are wrong. Historically, the Marines started as a cog of the Navy for a hand-to-hand combat or for expeditionary purposes.

No, you, are wrong. Clearly you do not have enough of an understanding of the structure of the US Marine Corps to making any sort of judgement about their makeup.

Take a look at the last paragraph in the link from defense.gov that I posted above.

Until 1834, the Marines were an independent service. President Andrew Jackson wanted to make the Corps part of the Army. However, the Marine Corps commandant at the time, Archibald Henderson, had proven that Marines were important in landing party operations, not just ship-to-ship battles, so Congress decided to put the Navy and Marine Corps into one department, forever linking these two "sister services."

4 ( +4 / -0 )

@voiceofokinawa

In case you still had any more doubt, I'm going to leave this here.

https://www.hqmc.marines.mil/portals/134/Mixed%20Media/EGA%203.jpg

I'm pretty sure it wouldn't say 'Deptartment of the Navy' in the Marine Corps logo if they weren't actually part of the Navy...

(That's the Marine's official website, by the way...)

2 ( +2 / -0 )

extanker,

I’d read this screed on the Pentagon homepage before it was revised as is. Apparently, there're a hoard of people who ask the same question as I do. The essay is penned by a particular person, and so when something goes awry, it can be attributed to that particular person, not to the Pentagon itself.

Anyway, the author says, today, the Navy and the Marine Corps are "sister services" attached to the Department of the Navy. But does this tell the Marines are part of the Navy with the top of the Marine Corps always reporting to the top admiral of the Navy?

The U.S. Coast Guard is now attached to the Department of Homeland Security, but its jurisdiction will be transferred to the Department of the Navy in case of a war. So one can call the U.S. Coast Guard a sister service to the Navy and the Marine Corps as well. They are sister services but note that they are independent services, nonetheless.

How do you respond to the questions I posed to TheLongTermer? I asked:

(1) The Navy and the Marine Corps are defined as separate services in U.S. Code 10 Section 5001; (2) they have independent chains of command with respect to each other; (3) different systems of rank names; (4) their top brass participate in the Joint Chiefs of Staff on a par with generals from other services. As such, the Marines can’t be stationed in Japan, Okinawa in particular, as if they were the Navy.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

I’d read this screed on the Pentagon homepage before it was revised as is. Apparently, there're a hoard of people who ask the same question as I do. The essay is penned by a particular person, and so when something goes awry, it can be attributed to that particular person, not to the Pentagon itself.

Anyway, the author says, today, the Navy and the Marine Corps are "sister services" attached to the Department of the Navy. But does this tell the Marines are part of the Navy with the top of the Marine Corps always reporting to the top admiral of the Navy?

The U.S. Coast Guard is now attached to the Department of Homeland Security, but its jurisdiction will be transferred to the Department of the Navy in case of a war. So one can call the U.S. Coast Guard a sister service to the Navy and the Marine Corps as well. They are sister services but note that they are independent services, nonetheless. 

How do you respond to the questions I posed to TheLongTermer? I asked: 

(1) The Navy and the Marine Corps are defined as separate services in U.S. Code 10 Section 5001; (2) they have independent chains of command with respect to each other; (3) different systems of rank names; (4) their top brass participate in the Joint Chiefs of Staff on a par with generals from other services. As such, the Marines can’t be stationed in Japan, Okinawa in particular, as if they were the Navy.

Man, you are just full of excuses. An article posted on the official Department of Defense website somehow is not official.

Now here’s your problem. You can’t tell the difference between a branch and a department. The US has seven branches of the military. But there are three departments: The Army, Air Force and Navy. The Marines and Navy branches fall under the Department of the Navy.

Now, there are your three forces listed in the treaty, Army, Navy and Air Force or Air, Land and Sea forces, whichever you prefer. Which includes all seven branches of the US military. No fictional treaty violation exists.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

U.S. Army Special Forces stationed on Okinawa from 1967 to 1968, 

Your talking about Tori Station, that tiny little camp near Hansen? Everytime we would get on a liberty run bus and have to make a stop there, we would see them playing volleyball, and some sign about a "snake eater" Never seen the Army one time on Oki do a damn thing. Mainland Japan? Zama? Whats that? Isnt it like 90 percent civilians? Never seen anything like the Army in Japan, what is that, a vacation tour?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I’d read this screed on the Pentagon homepage before it was revised as is

Nobody cares what you read, just go do, then you will know.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

the Marines can’t be stationed in Japan, Okinawa in particular, as if they were the Navy.

dude you all confused, all messed up....lol

0 ( +1 / -1 )

extanker,

I understand there are five branches or services in the U.S. military. They are in order of precedence: Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard. But, to my surprise, you say there are seven. So I investigated and found two others: Public Health Service Commissioned Corps and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Officer Corps

The latter two are quite unfamiliar to me, I have never heard of them, but am I the only one who is unfamiliar with these branches? I think President Trump is thinking of creating a new branch called "space command"

At any rate, these branches are genuine military bodies. Departments of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, on the other hand, are not. These departments are administrative bodies headed by civilian secretaries, who are supposed to exercise "civilian control" over the military services under their jurisdiction.

So if you insist "the Navy" as stipulated in the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty is the same as the Department of the Navy, then the U.S. can keep in Japan only the administrative staff from the Department of the Navy and administrative buildings, never bases and facilities of this magnitude.

How do you respond?.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

SECNAV is over the USMC and USN....the civilian control comes from the constitution, silly

2 ( +2 / -0 )

All this discussion about whether or not the MC is a part of the Navy or not, is purely an academic discussion for people who dont know about the US military and it's command structure. Pointing out facts, not opinions, will not get anyone anywhere with someone who does not want to accept anything other than their own opinion, in other words a troll. It's impossible to have an intelligent discussion because they cant accept anything that is against what they THINK they know, even when, excuse me, especially when it's wrong.

Only those ignorant would try to make a claim that the security treaty with Japan doesnt include the MC and is "illegal" thus there being here in Okinawa is whatever....That opinion, is born from and comes from ignorance and deep inbred hatred for the MC. When emotions come into play, particularly for some who owe their very existence to said country they hate so much is mind boggling to say the least.

Your talking about Tori Station, that tiny little camp near Hansen?

FYI Torii Station is no where near Camp Hansen, it's in Yomitan, on the "other" side of the island, closer to Kadena AFB than any other installation!

>

2 ( +2 / -0 )

FYI Torii Station is no where near Camp Hansen, it's in Yomitan, on the "other" side of the island, closer to Kadena AFB than any other installation!

its been awhile...)

I just remember the ville, some little town right below that, I want to say ishikawa, and nago. Actually a very beautiful place back then. The locals wanted nothing to do with us. Actually I dont think anybody did...especially the air force...lol.

cant say I ever saw one Army solider running PT, tracks, mortars, helos, nothing in Oki. Actually I dont remember seeing one solider there at all. There are a few at Camp Zama, I think they are running the golf course, base housing and the commissary. I saw one in dress uniform once, looked like a walrus. I guess they got different fat body standards. He had allot of cool trinkets on his uniform though. Maybe he was a snake eater. See in the corps you dont know who is a snake eater or not, everybody is the same. Look at the commandant here in the pic, we see jump and scuba qual, but he probably been to SERE, Army Ranger school, and all kinds of high speed low drag stuff. He is a Marine first, no need to broadcast "Im a snake eater" ha ha.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

At any rate, these branches are genuine military bodies. Departments of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, on the other hand, are not. These departments are administrative bodies headed by civilian secretaries, who are supposed to exercise "civilian control" over the military services under their jurisdiction.

This is a total evasion and obfuscation of the subject, not to mention off topic as well.Now the things you write here are just making off the wall comments to argue for arguments sake nothing more nothing less!

The Departments of the services of the military branches of the military are run by civilian heads, just like the Japanese Defense Ministry is officially "run" by PM Abe, a civilian.

The President of the United States is the Commander in Chief of the US armed services, he is, a civilian too!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

There is people like that everywhere. One lady was trying to tell me there are tigers in Japan, I guess she saw a painting in a temple or something. I was like no, those drawing are from China. She kept saying no no, they are in the mountains! You just let them believe what they want to believe.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Yubaru,

Of course, you can claim the Marines are the Navy for whatever reasons there may be or may not be.  But that claim is based on your wishful thinking and not on facts.  Can you answer the questions I posed to The LongerTermer znc extnker?  I asked:

(1) The Navy and the Marine Corps are defined as separate services in U.S. Code 10 Section 5001.  Can you deny this and claim, No, the Navy and the Marine Corps belong to the same service.  (2) They have independent chains of command with respect to each other, don't they?   (3) They have different systems of rank naming, don't they   (4) Marine generals participate in the Joint Chiefs of Staff on a par with generals from other services. Even a Marine general serves as chair of this supreme military body. 

As for the last question, how could this be possible if the Marine Corps isn't independent of the Navy?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@extankerToday 09:41 am JST

Man, you are just full of excuses. An article posted on the official Department of Defense website somehow is not official.

Actually, VoiceofOkinawa does have a point. A article made for laymen may have some authoritative interpretive value, but it is not a source of law like treaty text or statutes. He can fight it using the statute if he sincerely feels it is impossible to interpret the statutory or treaty text in the manner suggested by the website.

However, on the larger point, he still fails. Simply because he is obligated to read the equally authentic text such that they do not conflict with each other to the greatest degree possible. In this case, the world Navy is never used, not even in the Japanese version. The words are 陸(land)軍(forces - because Japanese does not have plurals)、空(air)軍(forces) and 海(sea)軍(forces), exactly as in the English.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is another of those "singularity" moments I posted about, like you see nuts with speakers at Yasukuni or panels of "Japanese" experts on TV shows, unable to process obvious facts or rely on some "source" (oyaji goofus) to teach them, where you can find the same information yourself with the reading level of an junior high school student in the US. Its the product of rote memory education and the lack of imagination.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Someone needs to understand the structure of the US military and not get stuck on semantics!

The Marine Corp was independent, became part of the Navy, came close to, not really but there was talk about it, being eliminated, following WWII, became it's "own" branch of the armed services, again, BUT works in close cooperation with the Department of the Navy.

Some would call, from the MC side of course, that the Navy is the MC's taxi-drivers and medical corp. (Joke)

But they work together, closer than other services, BECAUSE of their missions and history. The ONLY person questioning the legality of their being here in Okinawa, bases their opinions upon emotions.

No one, and I mean no one of any importance or with any authority regarding their being here has ever questioned it from the angle that they have taken. Why? because it's nonsensical,

Consider ALL the people who are "protesting" the extension-landfill at Camp Schwab, NO ONE, not Onaga, not Denny, no politicians, no press/media, NONE have ever taken this point up, EVER.

Why you may ask? Because it's nonsense, plain and simple!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

(1) The Navy and the Marine Corps are defined as separate services in U.S. Code 10 Section 5001. Can you deny this and claim, No, the Navy and the Marine Corps belong to the same service.

Different services, same department.

 (2) They have independent chains of command with respect to each other, don't they?  

See answer to question number 1.

(3) They have different systems of rank naming, don't they 

See answer to question number 2

 (4) Marine generals participate in the Joint Chiefs of Staff on a par with generals from other services. Even a Marine general serves as chair of this supreme military body. 

As for the last question, how could this be possible if the Marine Corps isn't independent of the Navy?

Because that is how it works in the US military. The role and duties of the Marine Corps require an officer at that level.

Yubaru said it best. Absolutely no one else actually involved has ever brought this up because it is nonsense and the real players know it.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

actually there is talk every 4 years or so of disbanding the Corps. I think the latest idea came from SECDEV Gates,

I guess the Army, 78th rangers or equivalent could do it, with US Navy fixed wing and Army rotary wing assets, but it would never be the same. This is what makes the Corps what it is; they have to constantly fight for their survival or be swallowed up by the more disorganized and less prideful Army.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

One should not mix up between the Navy and the Department of the Navy. There's a sea difference between the two. The Navy is a military service headed by an admiral while the Department of the Navy is an administrative body headed by a civilian secretary.

It's true that the Marine Corps is attached to the Department of the Navy and so when dealings must be done with Congress, the Marines must deal with them through the Secretary of the Department of the Navy.

Note, however, the fact that the Marines are subsumed under the Department of the Navy doesn't mean the Marines are subsumed under the Navy. Both are independent services even though they work very closely together when engaged in invading enemy land. Yubaru characterizes this by implying the Navy is like a taxi company offering transportation vehicles to the Marines.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites