HADJI GIRL

I WAS OUT IN THE SANDS OF IRAQ
AND WE WERE UNDER ATTACK
AND I, WELL, I DIDN'T KNOW WHERE TO GO.
AND THE FIRST THINK I COULD SEE WAS
EVERYBODY'S FAVORITE BURGER KING
SO I THREW OPEN THE DOOR AND I HIT THE FLOOR.
THEN SUDDENLY TO MY SURPRISE
I LOOKED UP AND I SAW HER EYES
AND I KNEW IT WAS LOVE AT FIRST SIGHT.
AND SHE SAID
DURKA DURKA MOHAMMED JIHAD
SHERPA SHERPA BAK ALLAH
HADJI GIRL I CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU?RE SAYING.
AND SHE SAID
DURKA DURKA MOHAMMED JIHAD
SHERPA SHERPA BAK ALLAH
HADJI GIRL I LOVE YOU ANYWAY.

THEN SHE SAID THAT SHE WANTED ME TO SEE.
SHE WANTED ME TO MEET HER FAMILY
BUT I, WELL, I COULDN'T FIGURE OUT HOW TO SAY NO.
CAUSE I DON?T SPEAK ARABIC.
SO, SHE TOOK ME DOWN AN OLD DIRT TRAIL.
AND SHE PULLED UP TO A SIDE SHANTY
AND SHE THREW OPEN THE DOOR AND I HIT THE FLOOR.
CAUSE HER BROTHER AND HER FATHER SHOUTED
DURKA DURKA MOHAMMED JIHAD
SHERPA SHERPA BAK ALLAH
THEY PULLED OUT THEIR AKS SO I COULD SEE
AND THEY SAID
DURKA DURKA MOHAMMED JIHAD
SHERPA SHERPA BAK ALLAH
SO I GRABBED HER LITTLE SISTER AND PULLED HER IN FRONT OF ME.
AS THE BULLETS BEGAN TO FLY
THE BLOOD SPRAYED FROM BETWEEN HER EYES
AND THEN I LAUGHED MANIACALLY
THEN I HID BEHIND THE TV
AND I LOCKED AND LOADED MY M-16
AND I BLEW THOSE LITTLE F***ERS TO ETERNITY.
AND I SAID

DURKA DURKA MOHAMMED JIHAD
SHERPA SHERPA BAK ALLAH
THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THEY WERE F***ING WITH A MARINE

--The lyrics to the "Hadji Girl," sung by a Marine, Cpl. Joshua Belile, who was videotaped during the performance; cited in Thomas Riggins, "The 'Hadji Girl' Debate and the Fog of War" (Political Affairs Magazine/Selves and others, June 21)
http://www.selvesandothers.org/article14713.html

So this is really an editorial piece 'bout how "This war and the immorality of the Bush administration has caused many, far too many, people to abandon even the most rudimentary moral and ethical views they might have been expected to hold" as was stated in the linked item? Or might be 'tis actually 'bout a guy tryin' to sell his book? Since when is that somethin' pertainin' to "U.S. Military Issues", eh?

'Tis interestin' the post above mentions nothing 'bout this passage from the linked item: Cpl. Belile has apologized for this song and has said, "I will never perform this song again, and I will remove all video and text in relation to this that I have control of.", eh? I wonder why?

Methinks the very first sentence from the linked story, which reads "With all the news from and about Iraq last week the brouhaha over the video of a marine singing a song about using a little girl as a shield and laughing when she is killed might seem to be a tempest in a teapot", tells 'tall! First of all it, like so many things we've seen here lately, fails to capitalize the proper noun "Marine" (methinks showin' a conscientious attempt to show contempt and/or disrespect for the United States Marine Corps and them servin' therein). IMHO it also indicates just how important this story really is, which methinks falls into the "Not Very" category 'cept maybe to them already holdin' little respect for members of our armed forces and wantin' to display that philosophy.

Y'all can criticize my reasonin' all you want, but that's exactly how I feel and sayin' anything else or sayin' nothin' 'tall would, to me, be dishonest, eh? And no, I don't think I've stepped over any lines or got anything to apologize for.

Fly,
The word "marine" is not always capitalized like when saying "the marine" or "a marine"...apparently it is grammatically acceptable to do it either way..."the marine(s)" or "the Marine(s)" when referring to a specific marine or marines, so I don't think one can say definitively that the use of the lower case "m" by the author of the article is a sign of disrespect.
Of course if one is referring to Marines as a group, "the Marines" would be appropriate.

Amy, with all due respect .. you miss the point. Fly's objection has nothing to do with what is grammatically correct. As he took great pains to politely explain several days ago the tradition is to capitalize the word Marine when referring to a member of the Corps and it is considered to be disrespectful not to honour that tradition. In fact , even Wikipedia capitalizes the word in every single entry and instance where the term is used as I have just seen upon checking its entries regarding the US Marines.

Frankly, what I find incredibly surprising is that in a forum promoting civility and Common Sense a song such as is posted in this thread would even be given bandwidth. It is unquestionably one of the most obscene posts I have ever read here. And I would think decidedly offensive to several members here. Knowing you, and the original poster to be very sensitive and sensible individuals whom I do respect a great deal I am admittedly surprised that you don't agree.

Seems to me the point is US military troops are demoralized, fatigued, shell-shocked, forced to fight an unwinnable war and don't understand the language or empathize with the customs of the Iraqis.

How we can even feel surprise when we hear these stories of US military struggling to cope amazes me. What did people expect?

Like all of you who read the lyrics to this song, I was appalled, not so much by the lyrics themselves, but by the realization of what this war is doing to our troops. I take from this that our troops do not see a moral purpose or utility to what they are fighting for in Iraq. This crop of troops are not going to come home feeling like war heroes.

Snuff, I understand your reasoning for posting this. I do know your intent was sincere. I know you care deeply. And there is no doubt these troops will return home scarred forever but the song is an obscenity and offensive and belongs on the Sludge Report .. not in CGCS. IMHO.

CO,
My response about the capitalization of "marine" was to Flydangler's post and although you are certainly free to respond to my post to him, I will respond to Fly if he chooses to respond to my post about the acceptable uses of capitalization of the word "marine" and Fly's feelings about why the author chose the lower case.

I have no problem whatsoever with the song being posted. Why? Because I believe it is an indication of this Marine's midset towards the Iraqis which is obscene, but perhaps understandable in light of the nature of the fight our miltary faces every day. It can also be an indication of a lack of support and appropriate guidance from military superiors who set the psychological tone in their area of command.

I'm certain some of the news about a few military members in Iraq behaving badly (or allegedly behaving badly) is disturbibg to some members of CGCS. On the other hand, this war in Iraq and all it's consequences for our military and the Iraqis is also very disturbing to some members of CGCS. War is disturbing so it is no surprise to me that feelings will run high on many war related issues and articles that are posted on this board.

As a moderator, I will not support any particular point of view or cater to any particular sentiments concerning the material that is posted her. My intent and in fact my job is to help maintain an environment where members can respectfully and civily present their opinions on a wide range of issues, including Iraq war related issues.

Why, so people don't have to see it? I didn't know anything about this until I just read it here.

The fact that the Marine in question's own lyrics say he is "laughing maniacally" as the blood spurts from between a little girl's eyes indicates to me there is hope for him. That would drive me mad. Black humor is sometimes the only way a human mind has to cope with a horror that would otherwise destroy the psyche.

I'm glad he has denounced his mental vomit. Let's get our kids out of there.

CO - You are absolutely correct that the song is an obscenity and offensive, but its not likely to get any play on a Sludge Report. I am hopeful that members here on the Forum find this extremely disturbing and that we haven't become so hardened and jaded that reading something like this doesn't bother us.

As a Marine I'm embarrassed by this form of humor but on the other hand I understand why and where it comes from. Having served one tour of combat many years ago I know first hand what it does to ones psychy I can only feel for these young men and women that are serving multiple tours. PTSD is truly a deamon that grasps ones being.

I couldn't agree more about getting them out of there TRoU but repeating his "emotional vomit" only serves to enflame and disgust and it is USING the torment of those troops to further an argument which needs no reinforcing. That demeans not only the troops, it demeans those who are claiming to care so much about the situation in which they are mired through no fault of their own.

I have fought the war mentality all of my life but I abhor using those who are in combat in order to further that argument. I'm too old to change now and in any case I would hate myself if I did. I saw what that mind set did to far too many friends a long time ago. What the enemy hadn't already destroyed their own did to them when they returned home.

I know the anti war sentiment is at fever pitch and with every justification but there are ways to make that position heard without resorting to these tactics. Obviously I am in the minority in feeling this way. But that doesn't deprive me of my right to voice my opinion. Which I have done, and now I am outta this abomination of a thread.

If certain other posters had started this thread then I might agree about the motives you are implying. But Snuffy just posts what's out there. I don't see anyone (including me) trying to unduly "take advantage" of a terrible situation to further their agenda.

Someone was nice enough to alert me to this, and I hadda duck home and log on to address it, eh?Though 'twas over 50 years ago, methinks in third grade Sister Saint Edna drummed some important stuff into our heads. Proper grammar was one of 'em!

A quick visit to a good site regardin' grammar confirmed what I was so sure of:

Noun: a word that names a person, place, thing, or idea

Common noun: refers to any person, place, thing, or idea; no capitalization is necessary

Proper noun: identifies a particular person, place, thing, or idea; always capitalized


So grammatically "Marine" when used in a generic fashion to indicate sea goin' infantry does not get capitalized, but when used as a contraction of U.S Marine, Royal Marine, Royal Dutch Marine and the like to identify a particular individual remains a proper noun and does require capitalization, eh? Seems pretty simple to me!

Back in the late 60s and 70s when the press was openly anti military it became common not to capitalize it, and that became accepted by some but IMHO this acceptance didn't make it right! The fact that this is accepted by some here at a time methinks we're seein' the dumbin' down of kids in school don't make it right either!

On the two occasions I've written newspapers 'bout this issue they've agreed with me and changed their policy on use. Methinks y'all might take the hint too, eh?

But, in that case, I feel the best way to find out why someone has made a particular post is to ask the person. That way we show respect for the poster's right to respond from their point of view rather than assigning motives determined from our point of view. We might not agree with the poster's response, but at least we know the "why" from the source.
And you're right TRoU, Snuffy, as news editor, posts what's out there and presents, in my opinion, a balanced reporting of the news given what is out there.

I wasn't trying to make a mockery of the soldiers. War is not pretty. I received the article from the USC School of Diplomacy news letter. I do think the US public needs reminding of how horrible the atrocities of war are. We are dealing with an Administration who refuses to show photographs of coffins, burials, honors and memorium. We are fighting a war overseas with a volunteer army. There is no draft - hence no pain or fear being visited on the young men of this country, other than those serving overseas. Everyone left behind has less than a birds eye view of what is going on. All of the media is one form of propaganda or another. We have a Congress who has refused to exercise its oversight responsibilities and have served as an unwitting rubber stamp of this Administration's conduct of the war activities. Any criticism from them is equally suspect since they have failed to manage the budget. Maybe it takes a war song to wake up the country regardless of whether we like it.
I post the news from all sides of the spectrum - at least to the extent it is out there and I can find it.

http://www.counterpunch.org/

Who Will Hold Them Accountable?
Iraq: Fool Me Twice
By Col. DAN SMITH

A date to remember will be the night of June 20, 2006. That’s the night Congress was fooled for the second time.
Remember October 2002 and Iraq?

So much has happened since then that it seems like ancient history.

Or at least that is what the Bush administration would like to have the public think. One constant theme that emanates from the White House is that whatever mistakes might have been made in the past – e.g., the reasons given to justify going to war with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq – that’s behind us. It’s “water under the bridge” or maybe “over the damn” – take you pick.

The latest example of trying to spin this web occurred in Vienna, Austria on June 21 during a presidential press conference following the U.S. – European Union summit. Asked why Europeans in recent opinion polls held the U.S. in low regard as a force for peace, Bush in effect discounted the poll results as a perceptual problem for Europeans. He had made decisions he though best for the U.S. and the world, and it was simply unfortunate that Europeans happened not to agree with him.

Besides, that was the past.

So it is. But so too is October 2002 when Congress voted to surrender to the president its constitutional duties with regard to declaring war by “empowering” the president to use any and all means and, at a time of his choosing, to compel Saddam Hussein to give up the weapons of mass destruction that the world “knew” he possessed. Bush pushed the button March 19, 2003, plunging the U.S. into a war in Iraq that has taken, conservatively, 45,000 – 50,000 Iraqi lives and killed 2,500 U.S. service members, 226 troops from other coalition countries, 100 journalists, more than 350 contractors, at a cost nearing $400 billion and that will generate more than 200,000 totally disabled veterans (never able to work) for decades to come.

For a number of weeks, congressional Republicans and administration spokespersons have been setting the stage with the same poisonous “props” of rogue states, terrorism, and weapons of mass destruction they used in 2002 against Iraq. Their apparent goal is to convince the public that Iran, like Iraq, is a menace to its neighbors, to the U.S., and to the world.

Some in the administration have also asserted that the October 2002 resolution for the use of force against Iraq was so worded that it remains in force for any contemplated military action against Iran. That is, the president can launch a war without getting further congressional assent.

Which gets us to approximately 7: 35 pm the night of June 20, 2006 in the House of Representatives, where Representative Maurice Hinchey (NY-22) introduced an amendment to the 2007 Defense Department Appropriations bill. The amendment reads: “None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to initiate military operations against Iran except in accordance with Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States” (Congressional Record, June 20, 2006, pg. H4300).

The amendment should be superfluous in that it merely re-affirms the existing constitutional division of powers between Congress and the president in time of war. Specifically, except in the event that the U.S. is about to be attacked or is attacked – at which point the president can deploy the armed forces to counter imminent or actual hostilities – the president is to request Congress’ assent to make war, including any attack on Iran. In commenting on his amendment, Hinchey affirms that its purpose “is to make sure that none of the funding in this defense appropriations bill is used to engage in any military operation against Iran without a full vote of the Congress of the United States in accordance with the Constitution of the United States.”

Representative Bill Young (FL-10) spoke against the amendment by reiterating the discredited administration claim of connections between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, a claim which was used to induce the House to approve the October 2002 resolution 296-133. Young was rebutted by Representative Peter Defazio (OR-4) who asked the House to “stand up for” and reclaim its constitutional powers.

The presiding officer then put the amendment to a “vote” and declared that the “nays” were in the majority – at which point Hinchey demanded a roll call vote.

Now at 7:50 pm, most members would not normally be in the House chamber. Members would be eating dinner or be at gatherings; many of their staffs would be gone from their offices, quite unaware that starting after 9:00 pm, additional roll call votes would be held. Putting these factors together with the supposition that many Members were not aware of the exact language of Hinchey’s amendment as they voted – i.e., mistaking the re-affirmation of Congress’ role for an attempt to limit presidential authority to act to repel an imminent attack – the combined circumstances produce the defeat of the amendment 158-262 with 12 members (six from each party) not voting.

In October 2002 the White House deceived the Congress and the public, inducing Congress – in the administration’s interpretation – to abandon its constitutional responsibilities in matters of war-making.

This “fool me once” has inflicted on the world 39 months of bloody occupation and war in Iraq.

Now the House has once again, in effect, abandoned its role in any future decision about the need for and the wisdom of initiating war in the name of the people they represent – creating a vacuum the administration will eagerly fill.

It seems high time that the people call to account those whose votes against the amendment – 215 Republicans and 47 Democrats – expose the nation to a repeat of October 2002 and its legacy. The United States cannot afford being “fooled twice” by Congress or the White House.

Nor can the world.

Thank you for the link...it's from PA, correct? You want to make sure my son is not "dumbed down" by his teachers.

The appropriate use of a capital letter for "marine" probably depends upon the policy of the news organization one is connected to or the guidelines used by schools or any educational institution.

I think, at this point in time, the rules are not written in stone, there is no one policy that governs how the word is capitalized in all circumstances, in some circumstances, yes, but not all.
For that reason, if one refers to a person as "the marine" I do not necessarily believe it is a sign of disrespect. But, probably the best way to get to the truth of why a writer chooses one form over another is to ask the author.

I've been following the story about this particular Marine since the initial story surfaced. Because of this interest and my initial reaction to the lyrics, I thought I'd do a little research on why someone would write a song about this and find out what other information was available. And so this is what I found.

Trou almost hit it. The lyrics are about a Marine in the middle of a battle who trusts an Iraqi woman who leads him into an ambush either knowlingly or unknowingly. The young woman's father and brother (perhaps another methaphor) attempt to kill the Marine with their AK-47's and think nothing of killing the young woman. It's a veiled reference to insurgents who think nothing of using woman and children as human shields. The part of the song about him grabbing the girl's younger sister is a reference to the same. Marines don't use woman and children as shields and that's where the black humor comes in. Probably not much different than the black humor you find in any other occupation and the only people who would understand that are the folks in the same occupation field. I don't find it funny but that doesn't mean this Marine deserves all the negative publicity he received either.

As to this Marine having PTSD, doubtful he ever saw any action at all since he's a helo mechanic and had a regular work shift and after work, it was band practice. The band entertained other military personnel stationed at Al Asad Airbase. The video obviously was made there and then posted on UTube without his knowledge.

Here's a snippet from a forum he posted on back in December of 2005 as Zelph. He returned to the states in March. Note the tone and unspoken gentleless. Note also in his apology, he said he was sorry and didn't mean to offend any Muslims. Nor does it seem he was worried only about himself. He said, he was worried about how the video will affect his career, his family and the Marine Corps. Note the last line on his post of January 24, 2006 -

From the forum:

Band in Iraq - The Sweater Kittenz

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Author Message Zelph

Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 12:02 am
Hey everyone,

Don't know how well this will work, my internet is screwy... but hey heres the scoop... I'm in a band out here in Iraq, and I just wanted to let you guys know we exist. We have a pretty good following on this base (Al Asad) and I wanted the opinions of the rest of the folks stateside. Unfortunately there are no songs for download on the site yet, but I would like for you to all check it out and continue to check back... we've got very simple recording gear out here... after all, we ARE in the middle of the freaking desert. We should have a CD completed by the end of the month, and we're asking for your support. Check out our web site at http://swtrktnz.tripod.com

There are plenty of images of us playing out here, so you can see what its like to perform live in the desert hahaha. If you've got any comments or questions, please e-mail me or post em here. Thanks again for your time everyone.

Lcpl Joshua S. Belile USMC
A.K.A.
-Zelph Morningwood
"The Wingless Wonder"

P.S. Just like everyone else on this site, we are looking for representation once our deployment cycle is complete next year...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

minusme

Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 11:55 pm
Hi & Welcome to UnsignedBandWeb.com!

We've got some other 'active duty' artists here as well! It's great to hear some original music from the 'front lines'. Keep up the good work!! I think it would make a great news story to show how even in time of war our troops find time to be creative and artistic about their new surroundings.

Click the link below to see a video from one of our servicemen artists: Switch

http://www.unsignedbandweb.com/music/bands/4088/

Then select 'video'

We offer a great avenue to gain exposure for your original music when your band can't perform regularly!

Best of luck with your music!
Ron
admin@unsignedbandweb.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zelph

Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 5:44 am
Just wanted to let everyone know we've got some music available to download now from "Music We Play" section of our web site. The site again is http://swtrktnz.tripod.com
Check it out and let us know what you think. You can reply to this thread, or send us an e-mail. My e-mail is (redacted)
Joe "Racerpig" Baes can be contacted in our contacts section of the web site, he's the lead guitarist. So check it all out and let us know whatcha think. Later on.

-Zelph
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
guitarist

Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 5:09 pm
so are u guys american soldiers playing on base ?

p.s my names Josh too
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zelph

Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 11:06 pm
We aren't soldiers... we are Marines. But I understand what you are asking, and yes... we are American servicemembers deployed to Iraq, and we started a band out here, and we perform on this base. You can do a search for it on google, I'm sure it will pull up some hits. The base name is Al Asad, Airbase. Once again you can check out our web site at

http://swtrktnz.tripod.com

I hope that answers your question, and you know... its funny how common a name Joshua is... I just met another Josh yesterday. Small world. Peace.

-Zelph
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gunner

Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:18 am
mmmm funny "We arent soldiers" statement, Im ex-navy i was a soldier and always will be a soldier, the word soldier is defined as: an enlisted person or non-commisioned officer, or an active militant follower of an orginaztion IE: Dept. Ot The Navy,IE: U.S.A,
Im not trying to start any Marine-Navy conflict here, but, in fact whether you like it or not you are a "SOLDIER",
By the way, I can say this because I served my time in the sand, and upheld the Constitution of this great country!!!!
On a lighter note, i really dug your music, and thats what it is all about anyway!!
Be careful over there, keep your head down!!! Laughing
Gunner
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Zelph

Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:46 am
Well I'm glad you dig the music, Gunner. I didn't mean any offense by what I said, but we've got all branches out here, Marines, Army, Air Force, Navy... everyone but the Coast Guard, and we refer to one another by branch. If you called a Marine a Soldier out here, you'd get corrected by him or her. It would basically be the same as calling a Sailor a Marine, or an Airman a Sailor. Hope that clears up any confusion. As I said, it wasn't mean to degrade the title "Soldier" we just like to be reffered to as Marines. Take care and Keep rocking.

-Zelph
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gunner

Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 7:09 am
dont tkae it to heart, i completly understand,,,,,,,,,,i was there in 90-91,
but,,,glad you didnt get all upset about it, when i served i didnt seperate the branches we were all brothers in arms,,,until we were at the bar then it was sailors against the marines.....lol,,,you know what im talkin about...lmaoooo
keep rockin and god bless you for what your doing over there,,,,
not only keepin the peace, but rockin as well!!
Gunner
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Zelph

Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:17 am
Hey Gunner, I went ahead and checked out some of your jams. I really dig your leads in the song you titled "Mooky" Its alot of fun to throw down a three or four chord progression, and overlap it with some hot leads. Sounds like you've been playing a while.

-Zelph
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gunner

Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:37 pm
yep...been playin for about 29 years...self taught, and off and on, life got in the way for awhile ....lol.......thats why im not a steve vai or
anything like that,,,plus im new at doing home recordings...cant ya tell???...lol
keep me posted if/when you guys get more music up!!
Gunner
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
guitarist

Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 7:21 pm
so gunner were u in desert storm ??

and whats it like in iraq is it like what we see on the tv ? or does the media fabricate details ? and only show the worst bits ?

- J o s h
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gunner

Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 9:25 pm

Yep,,,,,,sandy,hot,dry,,,kinda like hell!!!

ummm i deleted a big post i had on the subject of the military and the media,,,
out of fear i decided not to post my opinion,,although i am all for freedom of speech,but, ya just never know what kind of mood big brother is in..
Gunner
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zelph

Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2006 12:21 am
Well, lets see... right now its soaking wet outside, and the "sand" out here turns to the most disgusting, sticky clay you've ever set foot in when it rains. Its cold, windy and miserable. During August last year, it was incredibly hot, dry and windy. The thing about Iraq... is that in the summer, there is no such thing as a cool breeze like in the U.S. When the wind blows in the summer, its like a giant hair dryer all the time, so the only comfortable spot is indoors somewhere. Yes the media shows more of the bad stuff then the good stuff. My life out here is pretty good. I get plenty to eat, comfortable, climate-controlled place to sleep, I get time to myself and my hobbies. We work every day (including holidays and weekends) 12 hours a day. My shift is from 0700 till 1900 every day. After 1900 on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, I go over to CWO Joe Baes' place and we meet up for band practice. Tuesdays at 2000 we host and perform at the open mic night at the local Morale Welfare and Recreation facility. Any other time we have a show booked, we perform there. If it is during normal work hours, we can usually get the time off. My job out here is to fix helicopters... Hueys and Cobras, more specifically. I work on the hydraulics and airframe of the aircraft. So my lifestyle is going to be much different then the lifestyle of the Marines you guys see on T.V. They are at places like Ramadi, Baghdad, Fallujah, Haditha... I'm on Al Asad, Airbase, which is an American-based civilization more or less. We've got a movie theater, a coffee shop (kinda like starbucks), a PX, a post office, disbursing, burger king, pizza hut, barber shops, gyms, alterations shop, beauty shop, phone centers, internet centers... American Taxpayers' money is really going to good use over here. All of these stores are operated by people from third-world countries, like Turkey. I started to ramble a bit... I'll end the message here. Life in Iraq isn't bad for everyone, thats just what the media wants you to see.

-Zelph
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
guitarist

Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2006 8:48 pm
wow ! the media make it seem so different. thanks for clearing that up, iv always been wondering what it was like living on base in another part of the world, but it seems alot like home i guess, except a 12 hour shift seems kinda rough specially in the climate you just described.

"The Marine Corps has recently been made aware of a video posted to a website that purports to show a Marine singing an insensitive song about Iraqis. The video has subsequently been removed from the website. The video that was posted anonymously is clearly inappropriate and contrary to the high standards expected of all Marines. The video is not reflective of the tremendous sacrifices and dedication demonstrated, on a daily basis, by tens of thousands of Marines who have assisted the Iraqi people in gaining their freedom. We agree with the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations that the inappropriate actions of a few individuals should not tarnish the reputation of all American military personnel."

And anyone not capitalizing Marine is subject to twenty lashes with a wet noodle.

Even though I had pretty much stopped participating here in disgust over 6 months ago, what I see happening here now made me come out of hiding to comment on it. You can definitely put me in the column of those who see absolutely no other reason for this topic than as another of what I see as the veiled attempts to show contempt for those serving in the military that have been posted here over the past couple months. Cardinal's attempt to put things in perspective was met with a rebuff as a response, which just goes to prove my point.

Actually there are a number of topics here which seem completely out of place in a forum that is supposed to be for discussions of military and veterans issues. If I am not mistaken, the forum rules ask everyon to place their topics and notes in the proper forum and further state duplicate posting (e.g. "New 'Murtha Lied' Website" topic) in different forums is prohibited. If I am not mistaken there are active forums for notes and topics on the Iraq war that are not directly related to military issues, for op-ed commentaries, other non military related political fluff and, of course, the Cafe threads for that which is truly outrageous and not truly pertinent here or anywhere else. Why the rules aren't being enforced here is beyond me, unless it is being done with a purpose.

Much of this is of the same nature as what I remember we experienced here about a year ago. There is a difference though, back then it was only being enabled by an administrator and a moderator, neither of whom still participates on this site any more, while now it seems it is a moderator leading the charge and being supported by another. Does that indicate that the purpose of this forum has changed? Maybe it is another effort to make that happen, similar to the devisive attempts we have experienced in the past? I truly hope not, yet suspect that is the case.

You can argue that really isn't the case until the cows come home, but the fact that it appears since this latest episode started a couple months ago all the forum members that are actively serving in the military seem to have left, and now you are losing the retired military as well as some other military veterans. After looking it over this place has been thought of by many veterans and people serving in the armed forces as having an anti military bias for a very long time, and that feeling has only been made stronger by what is now going on. I am pretty sure the two moderators involved were contacted by someone else and informed of this, but it has only gotten worse since then.

It is possible that they don't intend to be anti military and what we are seeing is just an extension of their anti war fervor, but to those of us with close ties to the armed forces the anti milatarism is readily apparent in much of what is now being posted here. For those of us who experienced somewhat the same thing, though in a different way, during and just after the Vietnam war it certainly brings back many unpleasant memories. How soon before we start the equivalent of spitting on people here?



That was my fault, not his. Actually he got referred to the home page for this site by me back around Thanksgiving. It's part of a 7th grade grammar and English site from a Bethlehem, PA middle school that was one of the sources I used to help the foster children staying with us to develop their writing skills. He asked for reference sites for the kids from Louisiana he has staying with him and this was one of those I provided. You can see the actual home page by going to http://www.beth.k12.pa.us/schools/wwwclass...es/kgrammes.htm.

You seem to be implying that he had an ulterior motive, but I really can't see what led you to that conclusion. I believe you live in PA, and if that is the case there's little chance of your son being "dumbed down by his teachers", unless he is in the Philadelphia school system. To the best of my knowledge Philadelphia is the only system in that Commonwealth still using outcome based education. Everywhere else in PA they seem to be pushing real educational policies, unlike what is happening in Massachusetts where I teach.



No, as has been pointed out to you by others who even gave you sources to check it out, the derivative of a proper noun should always be capitalized. Just as Doc flydangler explained to you, it was only a little over 35 years ago that anti military journalists started using the lower case "m" intentionally as a means to show contempt for the Marine Corps and those serving in it. At least back then people that did it freely admitted what they were doing. As he said, the fact that some accept it does not make it right.

You may have noticed that in note #12 khesanhvet, a Marine veteran, tried to give you a hint, more recently the Top tried to do the same and as a retired Marine I will tell you for a fact that Marines consider this to be the slur many intend for it to be seen as. I am truly sorry you can't see and won't even consider this.

What you are claiming is the same as if I or any one else said it would be okay to use lower case for Pennsylvanian, Canadian, Jew, Native American, Catholics or African-Americans. To me it is nothing more than a way to show disrespect. When it is done unintentionally then when you are informed of this it seems to me your responsibility to take corrective action and make things right.

Your arguments on this remind me of similar ones in other parts of this forum by those who were freely tossing slurs around, using anti semetic remarks and posting anti semetic notes. They argued that wasn't their intention and kept right on, even after being told about what they were doing, until administrators finally stepped in and put a stop to it. Hopefully that won't have to happen here.

I can probably leave in disgust again now. Although it probably did no good I had to get this off my chest and probably said too much in the process. Would you at least do us the courtesy to ponder what I and others have asked and consider what has been pointed out? I wouldn't think that is too much to ask.

It’s too bad that you have stopped participating here “in disgust.” It’s also unfortunate that other military people have stopped posting here, if that be the case. Perhaps you previously stated your specific reasons for leaving CGCS somewhere else. I’m not familiar with your particular grievance, unless it’s just the anti-military tone that you describe exists here.

My personal opinion is that a topic about this 'Hadji Girl' Song is appropriate to post on CGCS because it is news. I also believe the U.S. Military Issues sub-forum could be the right place for it because it concerns the activities of our military forces in Iraq. It probably could also go into the “Afghanistan/Iraq” sub-forum.

There seems to be some disagreement as to what sorts of topics are supposed to go in which forums. Perhaps we need some clarification from the mods or from Michael or Sandra about this.

I personally have been questioning the large number of topics that have been started in the U.S. Military Issues sub-forum recently. To me, it is excessive. I too believe that many of these articles should go into the “Afghanistan/Iraq” topic area.

I also wonder sometimes if we need all of the articles that we have posted here. To me, it often is overwhelming. Is CGCS a library? Who reads the articles? This issue would better be the subject of a more general thread, probably in “Online Café.”

I also dislike the duplicate posting of the same article in different places, although I have done this on occasion when I felt it was a particularly important article. For instance, sometimes I will post an article in the appropriate sub-forum like “Afghanistan/Iraq” so it is more likely to remain there for a while, and also in “Online Cafe” so that it can have more visibility.

Regarding the issue of whether to capitalize the word marine as pertaining to a branch of the U.S. military service, and to describe a particular person in the Marines, I believe it is capitalized, as are the words Navy and Army. If one is talking about a group of marines, it would not be capitalized. However, some language and grammar experts do not capitalize the word Marine in the former instance I just cited. This is from the University of Minnesota Style Manual:

MILITARY TERMS
1. Capitalize full titles of military forces; do not capitalize incomplete names or derived adjectives.
United States Marine Corps
the marines
marine recruiter
Reserve Officers Training Corps
the reserves
army reservist
2. Capitalize full titles of wars, battles, and military awards.
World War II
Second World War
Battle of the Bulge
Medal of Honor


http://www1.umn.edu/urelate/style/capitalization.html



I am strongly against war in general and the Iraq war in particular. Personally, I find it difficult to separate war from military. I tend to be anti-military because I don’t like what I see as the propensity of military people to want war, even though I have been told that military people don’t like getting shot at, etc. That would seem to make sense. And, I know there are a multitude of reasons why people join the military, aside from wanting to go to war.

I also don’t like “the military” because I don’t like all the expense we incur to arm them. I have friends that I love who have served in the military and who even defend many of the weapons on which we spend money. I just don’t like the whole philosophy behind it. I want to encourage an environment of peace in this world.

If I have contributed to what you perceive as the anti-military climate on this forum, and this has caused you and others to stop posting here, then I feel bad about that. I would prefer that you stay and engage with those with whom you disagree. Marine does that, and I am very grateful for his input. I personally commit to being more sensitive in the future to the military viewpoint.

US Marine exonerated for song about killing Iraqis:

The U.S. military will not punish a Marine who performed an obscenity-laced song to a laughing and cheering crowd of fellow troops in Iraq making light of killing Iraqis, the Marine Corps said on Tuesday.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N27397428.htm

Wow... what fascinating commentary... and how much of it is on point?

I stand in support of Snuffy posting this... it's one more little thing that shines a light on the culture surrounding the overall situation and, to that end, it's a good thing.

So please don't shoot the messenger.

In the overall context of everything that Snuffy posts here to this forum, this is a little wrinkle.

I have no combat experience, and I'm not an expert on PTSD. To me, there's little value in debating whether the presence of capitalization is a sign ofrespect or not. It could be a typo made in haste at some point in the process. If we want to talk about whether or not our culture respects the military men and women in uniform and on the front, perhaps we should focus our discussion on what's being done for the physically and mentally wounded once they return home.

So, in the overall context of the war (and the casus belli that sent our troops to Iraq), and on the swift-boating of decorated veterans, and the increasing number of alleged atrocities, and the debate (or lack of a coherent debate) on what our strategy is for Iraq, and the tremendous human cost of the war, and the effect that war is having on our society (in the small towns that send those men and women in uniform), etc etc ...

This posting does no harm.

If you want to read about things that will really make you sick about what's going on in America, drop me a PM.

This song doesn't come close to the revulsion you will feel if you look into things they don't want you to know about...

If you are upset about this thread, your attention is in the wrong place.

I support the posting of the song's lyrics, as well, but wish there had been some kind of context or commentary from Snuff on it.

But, Magmak, I found your post above to be really condescending. And insensitive to other posters' sensitivity. We've heard from at least four retired military members to whom the capitalization issue is obviously significant. Who are you to say it isn't?

Did you read the blog that Cardinal posted from the young man who wrote this song, in which he and another young man very carefully danced around the use of terminology that was acceptable and respectful to them (Marine vs. soldier, etc)?

This stuff matters.

I actually agree that it does matter. Our men in uniform are the backbone of the defense of this country, not to be treated as cannon fodder, which I do believe is how Rumsfeld treats them. Bush is worse - he treats them as a photo op - Thanksgiving dinner and jogging with a veteran - Just so we are clear here, I am not a political tool of any particular group that has as its primary mission the undermining of the military of the United States, wittingly or otherwise.

I would suggest reading Packer's The Assassin's Gate to get a better understanding of where I am coming from with respect to the conduct of the war in Iraq. And I further think that the motto for military preparedness in the future should be "Never Again" - should we dare to repeat what we did in Iraq.

As a moderator and news person, my job isn't to proffer my opinion, but to facilitate discussion of the issues. In fact, my opinion is irrelevant in the scheme of things.

Well, mission accomplished, in that case. And I disagree with that last.

Google Video of Marine singing Hadji Girl

Well, my intent was neither to be insensitive nor condescending. I have a great degree of respect for anyone who wears a military uniform (of any rank), and I also have a great degree of respect for nurses, teachers, doctors, fire-fighters and dozens of other professions to whom people feel called. Nor am I insensitive to the harm and pain that come to those who serve, and their families, and their communities. But we don't have threads here that address whether we ought to be sure to capitalize the word doctor. Respect doesn't come immediately upon donning the uniform of one's calling or the moment when the pin gets pinned on the breast or lapel.

My intent was to suggest that there are larger matters that need to be debated. It is not the lyrics of a song or the capitalization of a word that demand our attentions and energies now. Whether I respect a marine, a Marine, FlyDangler, Marine, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, or the Commander-in-Chief will not change the way we conduct the Iraqi war, or add or detract from the death, injury, devastation and harm to the US that result from it.

The essential issues are these: What are we doing in Iraq? Why did we go there? Why were we sold a bill of goods? What is the course and direction of our Republic? What is the nature of our national moral, social and spiritual character?

The song merely illuminates these questions.

It seems to me that respect can best be shown to those who serve in the military by insuring that they have a clear plan, solid and proven leadership, the proper tools and training for the job, that they not be sent in harm's way for specious reasons, and that when they come home they are honored (in part) with the best medical care we can give them.

This thread is arguing about the implications of one song-writer and one song.

The argument ought to be about the moral character of the political leadership that put the individual in that situation in the first place.

If we can have that discussion, then there will be a lot less situations in which soldiers write songs like that one.

Very well-written, Magmak.

Comment for Gunny:

The Murtha Lied Thread has been moved to Cafe. When the thread initially started, I wasn't certain which direction the news would take it. However, after posting additional material to the thread and given a review of various news sites and blogs of what is out there, I do agree that this thread's direction is better placed in Cafe.

Snuffysmith

That may be the rule in the people's republic of Minnesota but:

Talk:United States Marine Corps
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
United States Marine Corps is part of the Military history WikiProject, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of military history. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the United States military history task force.
This article is supported by the World War I task force.
This article is supported by the World War II task force.
United States Marine Corps has had a peer review by fellow Wikipedians which has now been archived. It may contain ideas that you can use to improve this article.
Contents [hide]
1 Archived discussions
2 USMC/USN/DON
3 Annapolis
4 Unarchived discussion
5 Reputation of the Marine Corps?
6 Second to What?
7 Platoons
8 Famous Marines
9 section order
10 More Casualties?
11 Infamous Marines
12 Ranks
13 Infantry training
14 Del link
15 Code talkers
16 Boots
17 Bases
18 "Soldiers"
19 Service uniform
20 Generals
21 CMC/SMOMC and capitalization
22 Pockets
23 Wikipedian category
24 Intro
25 Fouled Anchor?
26 Number abbreviations
27 Battle of Bull Run
28 Belt
29 Marines: Semper Fi
30 Reorganise
31 NCOs and Swords
32 Former Marines and ex-Marines
33 Bases
34 Operation Sharp Edge
35 Every Marine a Rifleman
36 Shock Troop
37 Rank
38 Corpsman Uniforms
39 Images
40 Uniforms
41 Why are some people calling Marines "Jarheads" ?!!!!
42 Marines are soldiers
43 Is that General 9 ............
44 Uniforms 2
45 Two Battallions
46 MARSOC and Joint Operations
47 Listing of Divs, Air Wings and MLGs
48 Naval Security
49 Mess Dress
50 Martial arts program
51 Mission
52 NCOs and Swords
53 Women
54 Section on D.C /non-fleet units
55 What Approach Should Contributors Take to This Article?
56 Thanks El C Vandalization Defense
57 Creation of USMC Portal
58 Example of declining reputation overseas
59 Motivation Cry: Turkish?
60 Detailed History
61 Mess Dress
62 Shortening this article
63 Appearance section
64 Operational names - discuss here



[edit]
Archived discussions
Part of the Navy discussion

[edit]
USMC/USN/DON
I reverted a one-line edit adding the sentence "In 2000 the Marines were amalgamated into the US Navy to form one efficient fighting force." Please read the archived discussion if there's any confusion on the issue, or please support that claim with evidence of this organizational change that we've managed to miss for the past four years. Fox1 16:42, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit]
Annapolis
How about explaining the Marine Corps component of the U.S. Naval Academy, and how Marine Annapolis cadets distinguish themselves from non-Marine Naval cadets at Annapolis? There's almost nothing here about how people become Marine Corps officers. Please help.

aight first of all, students at the Academy are not known as cadets. This term applies to students at West Point and Air Force, Navy's rivals. Students at the academy are known as Midshipmen (both Naval and Marine Corps prospective officers are known as Midshipmen). As for becoming a Marine Corps Officer, that is a decision up to each individual Midshipman. Most training will remain the same, however, summer cruise and summer detail opportunities will be applied for and assigned different as to those wishing to enter the Navy. DDog 3-4
[edit]
Unarchived discussion
Dan Rather was not really a Marine. He failed out of recruit training for medical reasons. Chadloder 20:09 Mar 29, 2003 (UTC)

[edit]
Reputation of the Marine Corps?
In my opinion, this article is not unbiased -- especially the section Reputation of the Marine Corps. I think that this part of the article is written from an US point of view. Internationally, for example in Europe, the USMC is not necessarily considered to be the "world's best elite fighting force" that some Americans want it to be. Some reasons for this: 1) The way the personnel are selected. Almost anyone can get in. There is not an aim to choose only the best and the most fittest for service. 2) Basic training is relatively short and contains primarily general military skills. For example, British Army and French Foreign Legion outweigh USMC in these areas.

Moreover, I would like to see examples to support the argument The Marine Corps' reputation often affects enemy planning and operations before and after combat. This sounds more like a legend than a fact.

My goal is not to undermine the fame of the US Marine Corps. It is an accomplished military force which has performed well in many war theaters. But I would like to see this article stripped of "marine lore" and (understandable) national proudness, which don't belong into an encyclopedia.

--oswd 00:30, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with you're statement "The way the personnel are selected. Almost anyone can get in. There is not an aim to choose only the best and the most fittest for service." The Marines are the most selective and hardest service to get into out of any in the US. The Marines have the hardest medical and physical examinations. Also the Marines will not accept anyone with a police record, however other services are more lenient in this respect. Also "Basic training is relatively short and contains primarily general military skills." Basic training is just that. Basic Training. Marines then usually go on to a specific school to further instruct them on specific skills such as rifle, demolitions, or any of a number of skills.


Abduncan4 00:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I would largely agree that the phrase "best elite fighting force" is hyperbole. Obviously it's subjective, but it also seems like vague language. "Force" is not, to my knowledge, any kind of quantifiable organizational type, which makes me question why the Corps would be place above even other U.S. elite units with higher entrance standards. The Corps is, I believe, the LARGEST "elite force" in the world. I've seen that factoid referenced in several printed publications (again, I recognize the rather hazy nature of both "elite" and "force").

--Fox1

Upon further reflection, I dislike this entire section, and I wish I had time to rewrite it. I removed the comment about actively recruiting 17 year-olds and "more aggressive" individuals after two days of looking failed to turn up any differences between the services in regards to recruitment age (not that I expected to find anything, since age is mandated across the DoD, not by the individual services). I think the article would be better served by dispersing information about differences in tactics and mentality across the other sections as appropriate IF they can be backed up. Otherwise, I see no reason to use the reputation section as a mask for poorly NPOVed information. Keeping the section would be fine, if there is at least an attempt to use real examples, instead of the author's own generalizations.

--Fox1

This section, and perhaps some parts of the other sections as well, have somewhat gone out of the hand. This article is not even near to an encyclopedia article, but a praise to the superiority, brutality and toughness of the US Marines. I am not the right person to rewrite this article, but I ask whoever edits this article to transform it towards an objective description of the US Marine Corps -- not a collection of stories telling which enemy fears the marines and how much.

--Oswd 20:47, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

I think that the reputation of the Marine Corps has more to do with its actual historical performance on the battlefield, rather than considerations such as the selectivity of its recruitment or basic training, something that probably would distinguish it in the "European" perspective that you cite. Another consideration is the scope, size and responsibility of the Corps. The Marine Corps is not and has never been organized across its entire organization as a "special-operations-type" organization, such as the SEALs, Special Forces, or, if you will, Royal Marines or SAS. The article points out that the Corps is larger than the British Army in its entirety. What the Marine Corps has done for most of its history, and what has distinguished it largely from the US Army, is serve as a mobile and convenient expeditionary force, in coordination with the Navy, in a large number of small actions in support of US policy, most of them in the Western Hemisphere or in Asia. (THe US didn't even maintain a large standing peacetime Army until after 1945). Outside those years when a major war was being fought (technically, the US Congress has declared war only five times in history), if someone saw an armed American in their country, that person was likely to be a Marine. I would argue that the most relevant perspective on the reputation of the Marine Corps would be the perspectives and memories of its historical enemies. I would invite anyone interested, and will work myself, to find and document in this article reliable quotes and sources of those who have encountered Marines in battle.

--Tommythegun 10:29 30 August 2005 (UTC) --

"Additionally, the aggressive tradition of the Marine Corps, and the Corps' widespread efforts to inculcate its Marines and the American public with this image have also sometimes backfired, leading to numerous accusations of sexism, racism and bullying over the years." This strikes me as going somewhat outside NPOV, probably being inaccurate, as well as being non-specific. I'm pulling it within a day unless someone can cite a source. --Tommythegun 12:13 26 September 2005

It's certainly non-specific, it may well be POV.... the description of negative accusations iss probably somewhat accurate, really, although you could certainly argue causation, but you're absolutely correct that it's completely unsourced. If you do end up removing it, might I beg that you revise anything else you dislike in the section? It's my least favorite bit of this article, by far, and I encourage anyone with ideas to Be Bold.
Fox1 12:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
I changed it, as you can probably see, to:
"Additionally, the aggressive tradition of the Marine Corps, and the public perception of the Corps' as both an agressive organization and an elite force within the US military, has at times led to public relations issues surrounding accusations of bullying, harrassment and hazing since WWII."
This seemed more accurate and precise. It removes, or at least mitigates, the unsupported causative assertion; it removes the accusations of sexism and racism, an accusation that, in the broader context of US society and the military, seemed uncalled for and unusually severe absent either examples or sourcing; and I refined "over the years" to "since WWII", since this seemed a more accurate time-frame. The accusations of bullying and hazing are certainly a more concrete and attributable issue. Tommythegun 10:29 27 September 2005
Regarding MCMAP:

"This program marks another step in a series of calculated efforts to bolster the perception of the Marine Corps as a fierce and effective "warrior culture" both with outside observers, and with its own servicemembers."
This seemed to fall a hair outside of NPOV, and to be at best speculation. Therefore, *poof*! I replaced it with this, which is a rather more logical reason why a military service would want a martial arts program:

"Due to an expectation that urban and police-type peacekeeping missions will become more common in the 21st century, which will place Marines in even closer contact with unarmed civilians, it is expected that the Marines will benefit from having a larger and more versatile set of less-than-lethal options for controlling hostile, but unarmed individuals."
Tommythegun 10:43 27 September 2005

You're certainly correct about the practical benefits of the program. It's worth noting, though, that in this instance the text may be paraphrasing a bit, but is fairly accurate. The Commandant's comments on the new program are actually fairly close to what was written originally, and the "warrior culture" bit is a large, clearly stated idealogical objective of the program that is referenced in that manner in official publications.
Fox1 13:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure if people don't realize but Marine Reconnaissance units are special operations. There are two types, "Battalion" & "Force" Recon. Basic training is 13 weeks and it's not a walk in the park, if it was then why don't more join? Why the "Man, you're joining the Marines?!". It is much shorter than Royal Marines, which is 9 months(weekends off). Royal Marines focus more on skill not discipline, they are *really* laid back, first name bases. Our objective, uses, and dynamics are much different. We simply can't afford to have recruits spend nearly a year in basic training. Hazing, bullying is now considered illegal, drill instructors who disobey these orders are investigated. Some 20 or more years ago, hazing and bullying were very common. In any case, Marines are very much known for their performance on the battlefield, what they convey and signify. The legacy, history of the Corps speaks volumes.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.3.66.59 (talk • contribs) 20 November, 2005.
Not sure what you're responding to here, but most of the regular editors of this article are familiar, one way or another, with USMC training and doctrine. Can't tell if you have issue with something in the article or are just commenting.
Fox1 (talk) 14:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Actually, you are incorrect. Marine Reconnissance (both regular Recon in Recon Bns. and Force Recon Co, along with ANGLICO) are not Special Operations, nor is a MEU(SOC) considered a special operations force under DoD policy. All special operations forces fall under the US Special Operations Command, or USSOCOM. The only units that do so are the US Army Green Berets, the US Navy SEALs, and the US Air Force Special Operations Command AFSOC. It was only two years ago that the Marine SOCOM detachment was created, however, it falls under Navy Special Warfare Squadron 1, the same command under which you'd find the SEALs. While highly talented warriors in their own right, what Marine Recon does is, quite simply, recon. Their missions are far different than what special operations forces are charged with. - STS
--You should probably refer to US Army Special Operations Command as opposed to the Special Forces in the above note. The Rangers and the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, along with Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations units are also part of SOCOM. The Army likes to load the deck.

I pulled this paragraph over to here from the main article, as it doesn't appear to be at all "encyclopedic" and is a completely biased post (though I must admit that I like the author's sentiment here).

"Reputation, notwithstanding, when an enemy of the United States rears its head, it is the United State Marine Corps that goes to foreign shores and kills those that would harm US citizens. We are constantly amazed at those who revile us and make uninformed judgements about what we do or how we do it. Just shut up and enjoy your freedom."
-- Maz2331

Good call. In the future, it's usually safe to just delete obviously NPOV additions from IP editors.
Fox1 (talk) 20:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit]
Second to What?
the aticle opens The United States Marine Corps (USMC) forms the second-smallest branch of the United States Armed Forces, with 170,000 active and 40,000 reserve members as of 2002. This leaves the reader wondering what is the smallest? Can this be clarified in the article please? Dainamo 00:21, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please do not try to strike the U.S. Coast Guard from the list of the U.S. Armed Forces. They are by law (Title 14) and by organization a separate armed force. GABaker 3 Sep 2004

this is clarified in the article. It states that the only branch smaller than the Marine Corps in the US is the Coast Guard. DDog 3-4
[edit]
Platoons
Platoon leaders in the Marines are known as "platoon commanders." It differs from the Army, which has "platoon leaders." [Moved comment from top of this page.]

[edit]
Famous Marines
Moved list to own page. Maurreen 16:15, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit]
section order
I think the article could be better organized, but I'm not sure what order is better. Any thoughts? Maurreen 17:41, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit]
More Casualties?
The sentence unceremoniously tacked on to the end of that section seems badly implemented and quite possibly untrue.

In fact, in the few times I've seen applicable comparisons, Marine Corps casualties have been significantly less, both in terms of Marine casualties and non-combatant ones.

That said, this also ignores the fact that Marine Corps and U.S. Army tactics and casualty rates may not be comparable in this way, owing to the superficially similar but technically varied nature of their respective missions. Fox1 30 Sep 2004

[edit]
Infamous Marines
What is the disagreement with describing Lee Harvey Oswald, Clayton Lonetree and Charles Whitman as infamous former Marines? Is there any doubt? Maurreen 04:44, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I changed the wording when I added a third entry, to switch from dual to plural form. If you think there's too much validation wording there now, feel free to change. I had planned on adding Oliver North, with a disclaimer regarding him regaining (or maintaining) some legitimacy in the public eye. Ended up thinking it was better to leave him out.
The one question I would have is whether that sublist would serve better on the famous Marines page? Seems odd to put the INfamous ones in the main entry, and the less controversial ones somewhere else.
--Fox1 12 October, 2004
The famous Marines, in a good way, are too many to list on the main page. I did add Clayton Lonetree to the "famous Marines" list; the others were already on it. I think having some negative information on the main USMC page makes it a little more balanced. But I see your point. I won't argue if you take it out. Or another idea would be to list just a few of the famous ones here. Maurreen 13:15, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit]
Ranks
I made all the ranks lowercase. They are not proper nouns unless they are immediately before a name. Maurreen 05:30, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, I had used title/heading capitalization, but I could see how lowercase would be correct, depending how you looked at the structure of the list, grammatically. I thought it looked better in caps, but it could just be that that's how I'm used to seeing them.
On a related note, I was always taught that the noun "Marine" was always capitalized ("soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines." "He is a Marine."). This seems to be how this article has been handled, how it was practiced in reporting according to government style manuals, and in any official documents that I can find or remember, but I've had the capitalization changed to lowercase in other articles. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find any references to the issue specifically in civilian style manuals (they lump all service titles together, from what I've seen), so I don't have anything to back my assertions up on this issue.
--Fox1 12 Oct, 2004
Associated Press style makes "Marine" uppercase; New York Times style makes it lowercase. There isn't clear consensus, but I'm used to AP. I see your point about capitalization in a list, but I think that might encourage people to capitalize the ranks in body copy, which I see a lot of. Maurreen 14:08, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I am removing the note that the reason that there has never been a Marine O-11 is because the Marines are under the control of the Navy. Technically, the next head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who will be assuming his office in four days, is a Marine, General Peter Pace. At this point, he will be the senior officer in all branches of the US military. Does this mean that the Army, Navy and Air Force will be under the control of the Marine Corps (oh, yes, and the Coast Guard during wartime)? Tommythegun 11:56 26 September 2005

Captains are company grade officers, not field grade. See http://www.marines.com/page/RankOfficer.jsp I'm not sure how to fix the table. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Telliott (talk • contribs) .

I made the appropriate change to the table. Thanks for the reference. —ERcheck @ 20:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
It's a funny question, and I'm hoping you're just being sarcastic, but no, the rest of the branches of the Armed Forces will not be subordinate to the Marine Corps any more than the Marine Corps is subordinate to the Air Force or the Army when the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is appointed from those particular services. Right or wrong, I tend to believe that the Marine Corps didn't have a five-star general during WWII because it was never as large as the Army or the Navy.

[edit]
Infantry training
Isn't there an infantry school at Lejeune, also? Do people go from Parris Island to Camp Pendleton? Maurreen 16:28, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Holy crap, I can't believe I didn't include that. Nice catch, now I have to go edit School of Infantry, too. Guess that's my Hollywood bias for ya'. Fox1 16:31, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Thanks.
Also, it would be good for both articles if we could indicate when women started going. Do you have any ideas about that? I went to boot camp in 1980 and didn't even get to the rifle range for at least a few years. I was very disappointed. Maurreen 16:45, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Done on this page, however, I'm starting to think the topic might deserve a subsection of its own. Especially since the Corps' slow adoption of limited gender integration has been thrown around by journalists and others as a cause for quite a few things, good and bad. Fox1 16:59, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You're really quick. Maurreen 17:16, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I updated the section on female Marines at MCT. I was in the reserves from 95-01 and went to MCT in 1997. I trained with one of the first groups of female recruits. How was it that I was it I was at Parris Island in '95 and MCT in '97? I was a 92-day reservist, where my training was staggered so I could attend college. 1995 - Boot camp, 1996 - MOS training (Motor Transport School), 1997 - MCT, 1998-2001 - Annual training schedule (2 weeks). DBBell 16:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit]
Del link
I deleted the link to * Teufelhunden 1775. It's only one page, and little there. Maurreen 06:20, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit]
Code talkers
This was deleted: "Some high military officers have said the United States would never have won the Battle of Iwo Jima without the secrecy afforded by the Navajo code talkers."

I'm restoring it. If anyone disagrees, let's talk. Maurreen 05:27, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Can you provide the source? Jinian 15:47, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It's in the third paragraph of Code talker. If the problem is giving too much credit, maybe there's another way. I just think the code talkers are worth mentioning here. Maurreen 15:57, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Umm, the code talker article doesn't provide a source either. It simply states it, without saying who said it or when it was said. See what you think of my change.
That's good. Thanks. Maurreen 05:49, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit]
Boots
Are the new boots really brown, or closer to tan?
Is Oct. 1, 2004, the date the black boots were declared obsolete, or the effective date of that declaration?
Maurreen 05:40, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Should be the effective date, the declaration was, I believe, dated about 12 months prior. Also, they're a light brown or a tan... I'm not very good with colors, but either description would probably fit. Fox1 14:01, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[edit]
Bases
1MAW is listed as being in Okinawa, but its HQ is in Hawaii, so why not say it is in Okinawa and Hawaii?

1MAW HQ is in 'Building 1' of Camp Foster, across the street from the Legion Gate of Camp Foster.

Also, the list of Marine Bases needs help from someone at least minimally knowledgeable; it says MCLB Albany is in New York, which sounds like a joke...

I think where most of the unit is, is more important than the headquarters. But you can add the HQ info if you wish. Maurreen 03:53, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Are there are a bunch of H-53 squadrons in Hawaii too -- and ASEK?
I think that is probably too much detail for this article. And what is ASEK? Maurreen 17:52, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You had said "where most of the unit is, is more important than the headquarters." I meant to point out that more than just the headquarters is in Hawaii; that is why I mentioned the H-53 squadrons and ASEK (Aviation Support Element, Kaneohe). I didn't mean they should be listed Here is a reference to both: http://www.combatindex.com/links/us_marine..._marforpac.html. Anyway, thats enough for me, it was only a suggestion, not something I have religious feelings concerning.
[edit]
"Soldiers"
I put "soldiers" in lowercase, as is standard. Maurreen 04:21, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

However, the official designation of members of the U.S. Army is "Soldiers." GABaker 14:42 UTC 30 August 2005.
Great, here we go again with the capitalization. What does "official designation" even mean? The reason that we capitalize 'Marine' is that you can find real civilian styles that back that usage up, even if it's not unanimous, and agree with government style manuals. So, feel free to back this up, but I'm reverting until you can source this (with something other than Army documents).
Fox1 15:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
I see your point; however, this is now the official U.S. military usage for all the services, though the Navy started capitalizing "Sailor" before the Army did "Soldier" and the Air Force did "Airman." Since we are talking about distinguishing Marines from members of the Army, I think the distinction is worth making. GABaker 18:26 UTC 30 August 2005.
Sorry, but "soldiers" isn't a proper noun. For example, The Associated Press capitalizes "Marine" but not "soldier." I don't think official military usage is the appropriate style. For example, we're not going to use military style to indicate time. I don't understand what you mean by "Since we are talking about distinguishing Marines from members of the Army, I think the distinction is worth making." Maurreen (talk) 06:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
while many other newspapers avoid the caps when it comes to the USMC such as the New York Times and the Christian Science Monitor. SimonATL 12:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Soldier is used to describe and Army soldier, not a Marine.

The phrase, "Soldiers of the sea", is, or was, fairly common used for the Marines.
—wwoods 08:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit]
Service uniform
This paragraph has undergone a few evolutions. So if anyone objects to what I'm doing, let's talk.

As of now it reads: "The Marine service uniform, roughly equivalent to business attire, is comprised of dark green trousers (or optional skirt for females) and a khaki shirt. The equivalent Army uniform is two different shades of green."

I'm going to change it. For one thing, the word "trousers" is inappropriate for women. And I doubt the skirt is optional, but I've been out for awhile, so I could be wrong. Maurreen 05:07, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The optional skirt reference was not so much right or wrong as ambiguous. Females are required to have both the skirt and the slacks, but, absent specific mention in the Uniform of the Day orders, it's at the Marine's discretion which to wear. So... it's not optional to have and maintain the skirt, but its wear can be optional for day-to-day dress. I suspect this is similar to what you experienced, but just letting you know in case it has changed. Fox1 19:31, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Fox1, I realized I might have misunderstood whether your comments were just explanation or you'd prefer to change the current wording. Maurreen 06:09, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Current wording seems fine to me, I was just pointing out what may have been the confusion of the word "optional."
However, is the army shirt really light green? As above, I'm not good with colors, but it always seemed a pale blue-green, maybe a teal or something similar. I would like to see a reference to the official name for the hue, but I can't locate one. Fox1 01:52, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I found the Army uniform regulation here, but it's not much help. On pages 91-92, they call it Army green shade 415. If you want to change it from "light green", that's OK with me. Maurreen 05:35, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Someone (name unknown) listed the service uniform as being worn with blue trousers. Factually incorrect, and corrected accordingly. Tommythegun 13:23 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit]
Generals
I changed "general grade officers" to "generals." But maybe it should be "flag grade officers." Maurreen 05:58, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"general grade" is a correct, although not often used, term. Guess it's a style decision. Fox1 19:44, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Officially, officers of grades O-7 to O-10 are listed as "General-Grade Officers" (source: 2001 "Handbook for Marines"). I believe that "Flag Grade" would be a Navy designation.

[edit]
CMC/SMOMC and capitalization
Another capitalization talk segment! Now, we've gone over the various capitalization issues here a few times, and I think we were pretty much in agreement so far, but I was surprised to see the Commandant and Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps' titles in lowercase. I understood the rationale behind de-capitalizing the ranks, but I was 99% sure that those two, as titles specific to a single high-ranking person (like POTUS), were capitalized. I checked the only document I could find specifically addressing the issue (the US Govt Printing Office style manual for 2000) and did a quick google news poll of usage of the term Commandant, and there was clear consensus for capitalization. I couldn't find enough instances of use of the title SMOMC in non-governmental press to get a good consensus, but combining hits for SMOMC and the Sergeant Major of the Army begins to show a fairly strong trend towards capitalization. I'll hold off on changing it to see what you have to say. Fox1 20:21, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am used to titles capitalized only before a name, which is supported by the Associated Press and New York Times style guides.
The Wikipedia:Manual of Style is not very clear to me, but seems to favor capitals only when referring to a specific person (that is, the person holding the rank at a given time).
But if you feel strongly about it, I won't argue if you capitalize them. Maurreen 04:45, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit]
Pockets
Is it really true that some Marines don't use their utility pockets whatsoever? Maurreen 06:09, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just speaking from personal experience, we certainly used our utility pockets in the field. However, while in garrison, the general rule was not to carry anything in the utility or blouse pockets which would affect the lay of the cloth and be visible. It occurs to me that I don't ever recall seeing this articulated in a written order, but it seemed to be universally done, nonetheless.
That said, I'm not sure that point merits inclusion in the list, as I knew individuals of all 3 cammie-wearing services (yes, I'm excluding Navy docs, seebees, seals and masters at arms) who sewed their pockets shut, cut out the back panel, etc in order to look sharper for garrison inspections, and I've never known any historical references to WWII or otherwise to be referenced. Fox1 01:48, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
After reading over it again, I removed that bullet. None of the things referenced in it were really useful ways to distinguish a Marine from a soldier, which is the stated purpose of the list. Plus, they were all matters of custom or ettiquette rather than actual regulations anyway. Fox1 02:06, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit]
Wikipedian category
I've created Category:Wikipedian military. Maurreen 06:32, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit]
Intro
Does anyone agree with the recent change to the intro? [1]

[edit]
Fouled Anchor?
For years I've thought that the Marine symbols were an eagle, globe and fouled anchor. Am I wrong on that last part? This article just says anchor. I know its not a big difference and I might even be wrong. KorbenDirewolf 23:17, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I just happened to have hqmc.usmc.mil open. /Customes_Traditions/Emblem_Seal.htm says
In 1776, the device consisted of a "foul anchor" of silver or pewter. The foul anchor still forms a part of the emblem today. (A foul anchor is an anchor which has one or more turns of the chain around it). Changes were made in 1798, 1821, and 1824. In 1834 it was prescribed that a brass eagle be worn on the hat, the eagle to measure 3 ½ inches from wingtip to wingtip.
:
The emblem recommended by this board [in 1868] consists of a globe (showing the Western Hemisphere) intersected by a foul anchor, and surmounted by a spread eagle. On the emblem itself, the device is topped by a ribbon inscribed with the Latin motto "Semper Fidelis" (Always Faithful). The uniform ornaments omit the motto ribbon.
:
[In 1954] an American bald eagle replaced the crested eagle depicted on the 1868 emblem,
—wwoods 04:56, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
According to Leatherneck magazine, sometimes the anchor is fouled and sometimes it is not. Maurreen 04:59, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC) Of course, the official site given by Wwoods is a better reference. Maurreen 06:27, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Officially, the upper arm of the stock should always be fouled, the only time it would be shown unfouled is by artistic license (low resolution/someone can't draw). That said, in day to day speech I've never heard the fouling referenced, and the insignia is always referred to by the name "eagle, globe and anchor." The fouling is there, but it isn't considered one of the 3 major symbolic elements, in much the same way as other details such as the ribbon in the eagle's mouth or the north and south american continents on the globe. I certainly wouldn't argue against mention of these elements, but some separate reference to the iconic "E.G.A." should remain in its uncluttered form. Fox1 04:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Fox1. Maurreen 05:23, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It probably would look better left as it is. KorbenDirewolf 02:37, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Also, thanks to everyone for replying to my question. KorbenDirewolf
Referencing a WWII-vintage set of dress blues on display at the recruitside tailor's shop at MCRD San Diego, WWII-era brass EGA barracks cover insignia did not have a fouled anchor. Tommythegun 10:07 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit]
Number abbreviations
For some Marine references, and also some Navy references, I've seen "2d" and "3d" for "2nd" and "3rd". Is one version incorrect, or are they interchangable, or what? Should we standardize on one--if so, which? —wwoods 02:00, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think "2nd", "3rd", etc. is more common in general. Maurreen 05:39, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I know that Third Marine Division is abbreviated up to 3D MARDIV, thus '3rd' should be '3d'.

If you really want to get into abbreviations, third marine division becomes 3 MD. DDog 3-4 2305 hrs, 24 May 2006 (zulu)

[edit]
Battle of Bull Run
The article is mistaken in claiming the Marines have never suffered a rout. At the First Battle of Bull Run they ran like the mighty Mississippi. I would make the change, but would prefer one of you Smart Guys on MC history would have better words than I. [[Paul, in Saudi 17:18, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)]]

I have to say, I think you're simply being contrary. The article currently reads "The U.S. Marines have never undertaken a full, large-scale retreat." It does not say "never been routed" or even "never suffered a defeat." There was only one battalion of Marines at Bull Run, and they were the last of the infantry screening that artillery battery to break. It's already been qualified with the note on the Chosin withdrawal, and this really doesn't merit further cluttering up the article. No change needed. Fox1 00:56, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit]
Belt
Is this true?

"Marines may wear a khaki "web belt" with a brass buckle with their utility trousers, but more commonly wear a colored belt, often referred to as a "rigger's belt", that is color coded to represent their specfic qualification under the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program."
Maurreen 07:01, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Sounds like a bad joke to me. --Alexwcovington (talk) 09:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes, this is correct. Part of the aforementioned martial arts program, which is rather more holistic and far-reaching than just a hand to hand combat training program, by the way. I was only around for the very early stages of the program, but we had a few Marines earn their belts. Advancement in the program also influences promotion... but I'm getting off the point. Yeah, the belt thing is true. Fox1 01:37, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and restored the bullet, here's a reference for you (ALMAR 043/01), with my emphasis added:
SUBJ/ESTABLISHMENT OF THE MARINE CORPS MARTIAL ARTS PROGRAM//
Rmks/1....2. The marine corps martial arts program, implemented in October 2000, is a natural extension of these basic tenets. Although it is a skill progression program offering martial arts training through a system of belt rankings from tan through sixth degree black belt, it is much, much more. It is a reflection of our warrior ethos that provides a vehicle for enhanced unit cohesion and increased self-worth.
There ya go, also, if anyone ends up being interested, Marine Corps Martial Arts Program is, as you can see, a red link. I might get around to it at some point, otherwise. Fox1 01:55, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping us current. Maurreen 02:05, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I may be a bit late on this, but these days the web belt is no longer authorized for wear with the utilities. The only ones to wear the web belt anymore are recruits who have not yet earned the tan belt, as all Marines have, since the MCMAP program was instated, earned their tan belt or above. If nobody objects, I'll make the change.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.162.140.44 (talk • contribs) 9 November, 2005.
Go for it.
Fox1 (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Thats incorrect, I know on my base we still have a few Marines in web belts. (Usually above the rank of GySgt) Nothing really effecting the article though, because if you have a MCMAP belt you are required to wear it. - Cpl G.

I agree with Corporal G. I've been out for a while so I don't know the specifics on this, but generally any uniform change in the Corps has a grandfather clause. Kafziel 00:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit]
Marines: Semper