Those USMC principles are fine principles; they exhort leaders to care for and develop the juniors under them. In my experience, in a political corporate environment, behaving that way will hold you back. Instead of "know your marines and look out for their welfare" you should "know your manager and look out for his/her welfare" ie "manage upwards". Instead of "keep your marines informed" you should "keep your manager informed, and only share information with your juniors selectively". Instead of "take responsibility for your actions" you should "ensure failures can be blamed on some scapegoat". If you're "managing out" a weak team member to avoid a payout you should "ensure the task is not accomplished" to build a paper trail justifying their later dismissal.
If you are a leader and you aren't looking out for the people under you then you are a shit leader. Applies to the Marines, applies to Amazon.
My manager there largely did what you are talking about and it did nothing good for anyone involved. It's pretty much the reason why one of the guys who worked for him as an engineer is now moving up to senior manager well my former manager is still stuck at the same place.
Acting the way you describe just leads to poor performance from your subordinates, up to them just leaving. That reflects poorly on you.
I've seen the tactics I described work very well in investment banking, purely in terms of personal advancement. I naively adopted a USMC style approach as a newly minted manager and got beaten up and stabbed in the back massively by the more experienced and Machiavellian managers. So I left. It's important to realize the difference between a mature org and a growing business. In a mature org the senior staff are all fighting to get a bigger slice of a pie that doesn't grow. That's not the case in a growing business. Note that I'm using the term manager, not leader.
