I never said or implied -- and I don't believe the author ever said or implied -- a total eradication of all our military so there is no need on your part to conflate things to such a degree.

Ok, you make some good points.  No, you didn't say or imply a total eradication of all our military because you didn't answer the question until now.  And my question was an honest one.  I didn't understand what your angle was to getting rid of the marines and since you evaded the question about the rest of the military the first time, I couldn't assume you weren't some pacifist or something (not that that's wrong...I was just trying to understand your perspective).

The way I read the article, yes, it seemed to me that the author implied, indirectly, that our military (all of it) was evil, wrong and unjust because all of the "issues" he listed related to the marines could be said, on some level, to have been performed by the "US Military" as a whole.  I mean, when we go to all these unjust wars (Vietnam, Korea, Middle East), they are not only fought by the marines, but all branches.  I don't know how you can say that the army/navy/air force did good things in the Middle East while ONLY the marines did bad things.  How many air force drones have killed terrorists and their innocent family members?  This has nothing to do with the marines.

In summary, if the author is going to demonize the military industrial complex, then all branches of the military are guilty because they've all taken part in all the wars and skirmishes.  If the author is going to demonize the marines and wants to get rid of them, I don't see how that will fix the problem...any evil missions that they would've taken on in the future will just be done by the navy seals or the army rangers, instead of the marines.  Getting rid of the marines won't get rid of the military industrial complex, the deep state, or the c-i-a or the mossad.

The article identifies the problem but its solution is short-sighted.

The author never said or implied that it would. 

We must have read a different article.  

Vance is over the top but I think what he presents raises an interesting question.  To what extent is it OK for a Catholic to be part of an organization that is known (sure, not all the time, but definitely a large chunk of the time) to engage in unjust warfare?  Sure we wouldn't be better off if there was just no military, but that wouldn't happen, if enough people didn't join, foreign policy would have to be adjusted.  But more important than that is, how much should the pragmatic side of this drive decisions?