Question. If all the Marine Corps brings to the defense of America is to act as a "STAND IN FORCE" then does America need a Marine Corps?

The title isn't click bait.

It's an honest question that should be discussed at Quantico.

If all the Marine Corps brings to the defense of this nation is to act as a "STAND IN FORCE" then does America need a Marine Corps?

If the Marine Corps is a one foe, one theater, one capability force that can't flex into other roles and is specialized on only being a STAND IN FORCE without utility in any other role then why not simply toss the mission to the Army?

Why not simply increase the size of the Navy and let them do it?

The EABO concept Marine Corps wide, in essence makes the Marines a one trick pony capable of doing only that trick and failing miserably to handle any other mission.

An independent service?

If you believe we SHOULD BE if we follow this plan then you're smoking crack.  We can get down to one division and close the rest.  We can halve the force, shut down commands and bases and have the entire Marine Corps on the West Coast.

175K boatspaces?  Why?  This concept should have us at 50K max.  29 Palms?  Why?  Parris Island?  Don't need it.  Lejuene?  Excess.  Albany?  Seriously?

But it gets worse.

The Army will provide tanks.  Why can't they provide infantry too?  The Army has cannons.  Why not let them have that role too and concentrate on only anti-ship missiles?  The Commandant talked about hunting subs.  Have you EVER heard a Commandant talk about hunting subs?

My point?

A Marine Major asked "what are we".

If we follow Berger's plan the answer is OUT OF BUSINESS.