I think the point that the author was making was that the Marines, having gotten so large, were no longer really part of the Navy Dept.
Hence the need for a 'new' Marine Corp to fill the void.
Well uh yeah. That's obvious. But the point of the response article seemed to me was in the 'authors' misuse of terms like tough and quality.
This is one of those deals where the 'Headline' doesn't really match the 'Content' of the article. I read Dunnigan's piece and like most of his work there is a provocative headline and an interesting openning line and then -- yawn -- he tells you something you already knew.
The US Marine Corps is by far the largest, most capable force of naval infantry in the world. Most nations maintain small units of this type -- a few regiments at most. The balance of Dunnigan's article alleges that the US Navy can't get the Marines to do some of the things (like advance-base/ship security) that Marines have traditionally done. Therefore, the Navy wants to create a force of naval infantry to perform these tasks. This contradicts the title of his article about the Navy creating a 'new' Marine Corps, because that is NOT what is going on.
As far as this former-Marine is concerned, I'd like to ask him one question: What is the drop-out rate of USMC recruit training versus BUDS. Prejudice aside, the drop-out rate is how you determine who is 'tougher'.