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.

 10:29 30 August 2005 (UTC)