re: Gen. Douglas MacArthur "dug out dug"

quote:

---

If you consider having a higher casualty rate to be awesome, then I'll concede your point.

---

I think I can defend the marines on this point. The problem is one of perspective and combat philosophy. The U.S. Army, and it's offspring, USAF think in terms of achieving tactical and operational objectives, while minimizing casualties - whether it be traditional doctrine or the evolution of that (i.e. the Powell doctrine, Shock and Awe). The USN and USMC strive to minimize casualties, of course, but this is also tempered by the need for speed - capital ships make fat, juicy targets. USN doctrine seeks to achieve objectives, particularly amphibious assaults and island seizing operations, very quickly to minimize the risk to capital ships - it takes months or years to replace those ships, while replacement sailors and marines are generally flowing at a steady rate.

It's callous, but it is logical and makes a certain degree of sense. Marines are more aggressive, by design. More aggression almost always results in more casualties in the initial phases of any operation. If you face a stubborn opponent like the Japanese, this can yield significantly more casualties over time than a more cautious approach - particularly if you have intact supply lines, air and naval superiority over the stubborn foe.