In his latest book, America's Victories - Why the U.S. wins wars and will win the war on terror, national defense and economics historian Dr. Larry Schweikart describes the performance of U.S. troops during the 2003 invasion of Iraq: “The Marines, given their superiority in combat training and despite their youth (Marines are the youngest, on average, of the enlisted troops) generally fared far better than the regular Army in combat situations,” he writes.

It’s not a statement that would necessarily endear Dr. Schweikart to Army officers. But right or wrong, U.S. Marines do indeed have a reputation for combat prowess that often surpasses the reputations of other military organizations – even the really good ones. And this rep has fueled the interservice rivalry that has existed since the birth of the Corps on November 10, 1775 – exactly 231 years ago, today.

Born in an old Philadelphia alehouse, with the barkeep as its first officer, the fledgling Continental Marine Corps was composed of a motley band of adventurers and street toughs; nothing like the 178,000-plus elite U.S. Marine Corps we know today. But somewhere along the way the proverbial formula was discovered. According to tradition – and in Lt. Gen. Victor H. “Brute” Krulak’s book, First to Fight – Marines started telling themselves they were the best. They started believing it, and they’ve been busy proving it ever since.

THE MAGIC

Best-selling author Tom Clancy refers to the result of this formula as magic. "Marines are mystical,” he once wrote. “They have magic … [a magic that] may well frighten potential opponents more than the actual violence Marines can generate in combat."

Indeed, this magic has been working to America’s benefit as a force multiplier in both peace and war for decades.

During the Korean War, for instance, Chinese premier Mao Tse Tung was so-concerned about the combat prowess of the 1st Marine Division that he put out a death contract on the entire division, which he stated, “has the highest combat effectiveness” of any division in the U.S. armed forces. “It seems not enough for our four divisions to surround and annihilate [the 1st Marine Division’s] two regiments,” Mao said in orders to the commander of the 9th Chinese Army Group. “You should have one or two more divisions as a reserve force.”During the same war, a captured North Korean officer confessed, “Panic sweeps my men when they are facing the American Marines.”

The Marines didn’t earn their reputation overnight. Many military historians would argue as to where, when, and in what specific combat-action the Corps’ rep was actually solidified.

Some might point to Lt. Presley O’Bannon’s successful 1805 expedition across several-hundred miles of North African desert to attack the Tripolitan city of Derna, where the U.S. flag was raised for the first time in the “old world.”

Others might point to the famous 1847 storming of Mexico’s Chapultepec Castle, the so-Christened “Halls of Montezuma.”

Still others might point to the First World War battle of Belleau Wood, in which bayonet-wielding Marines – led by a grizzled old Gunnery Sergeant Dan Daly who rallied his men with, “Come on you sons of bitches, do you want to live forever?!” – successfully assaulted a line of German machine-gun nests in 1918.

And most would agree in spirit with Navy Secretary James Forrestal, who, from an offshore ship witnessed the famous flag-raising over Iwo Jima in 1945, said, “The raising of that flag on [Mount] Suribachi means a Marine Corps for the next 500 years.”

Such events throughout Corps history have contributed to an ethos matched only by the most elite military organizations in the world.

“A LITTLE DANGEROUS”

Yet “a Marine Corps for the next 500 years” has not always been the wish of every member of the Marines’ sister services, some of whom have harbored a distaste for Marines perhaps stemming from envy, a desire for the same reputation, or competition for Defense budget dollars (the latter of which the Corps has always come in last). In fact, there have been efforts albeit unsuccessful to have the Corps either disbanded or absorbed into either the Army or Navy. Even after the Marines’ stunning performance in World War II, Army Gen. Frank Armstrong proposed in the late 1940’s absorbing Marines into the Army, and referred to the Corps as “a small bitched-up army talking Navy lingo.”

Decades later, in 1997, Assistant Secretary of the Army Sara Lister proclaimed before a Harvard University audience, “I think the Army is much more connected to society than the Marines are. Marines are extremists. Wherever you have extremists, you’ve got some risks of total disconnection with society. And that’s a little dangerous.”

But there has been much more expressed respect, than criticism, from the Corps’ counterparts:

“The deadliest weapon in the world is a Marine and his rifle.”— U.S. Army Gen. John J. “Black Jack” Pershing

“The safest place in Korea was right behind a platoon of Marines. Lord, how they could fight!”— U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Frank Lowe

“Marines have it [pride] and benefit from it. They are tough, cocky, sure of themselves and their buddies. They can fight, and they know it."— U.S. Army Gen. Mark Clark

“Marines I see as two breeds, Rottweilers or Dobermans, because Marines come in two varieties, big and mean, or skinny and mean. They’re aggressive on the attack and tenacious on defense. They’ve got really short hair and they always go for the throat.” — Rear Admiral Jay Stark, U.S. Navy Continued...