A Future Single-Service Military vs Branches of Service?

LTJG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 23:25:07 -0500

With budget cuts, debt issues, and penny saving all current hot-topics, what are your thoughts on the idea of a Single-Service Military as opposed to our present traditional branches operating jointly/independently?

Meaning that, for example, the DoD combine specialties (e.g. Medical, Military Police, Intelligence, etc) from each service into a larger pool, much like a force consolidation to reduce redundancies (e.g. Army MP’s, Air Force SP’s, Navy MA’s, and Marine MP’s all provide similar services, and receive similar training, and can likely do the same jobs already. Force consolidation would combined the 4 groups in to one force with one pot of funding, and provide a larger pool of personnel to cover world-wide mission and billet requirements). One uniform, one unified team, greater efficiency? Within 1 service: a single aviation community; a single infantry; a single intelligence community; etc.

Obviously certain traditions exist in all branches, and a level of resistance is expected for such an idea. But with joint operations becoming more and more the norm, is this a direction we might head? Should we?

Agree or disagree, what are your thoughts?

Response by PO3 Matt Schmidt made Nov 26 at 2013 11:32 PM

PO3 Matt Schmidt — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 23:32:04 -0500

I think that would be a mistake--'Economies of scale' and 'Government Run' don't seem to be something you hear in the same sentence. Not to mention, there would be a huge degradation in the culture of our military which would, in turn, lead to other unintended (negative) consequences.

Full disclosure--I am a former Coastie. The size of our branch allows for dynamic problem solving ability that would be lost in a single-service military.

And, it seems like there are quite a few joint operations out there that already exist to fill in gaps that require more than one service to be present.

Response by TSgt Kevin Buccola made Mar 26 at 2014 11:15 AM

TSgt Kevin Buccola — Wed, 26 Mar 2014 11:15:25 -0400

We are the United States Military and even though we have our individual branches, economically things should be under one.  For exapmple Recruitment Marketing...why are there 5 pots of money for recruitment.  What are there 10,000 Army Recruitment Offices, 9000 Navy, 6000 Marines and 1300 AF (estimating those numbers).  A person should be able to walk in one office and be able to discuss all service opportunities.  there is so much more that can be changed and would save the tax payer money, plus keep out benefits without getting more and more cuts.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 26 at 2014 12:31 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 26 Mar 2014 12:31:02 -0400

I think it might look good on paper, but I don't see this as being a good idea.  We have different services for a reason, and those services all specialize in different things.  I have been in the Army my entire career, and would imagine that it would be a big problem sticking me on a Navy destroyer or in a submarine because I have no idea how to function in that environment.  I see where you could think this would be a good idea, but I don't think it will be implemented effectively.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Jun 14 at 2014 7:39 AM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Sat, 14 Jun 2014 07:39:34 -0400

Over the past several years, the emerging joint environment has made all the services more aware of what each one contributes to the whole effort. Better integration and interoperability has been born from these joint ventures but don't think we can combine as one.

Each branch serves a distinct mission and you need a specialized chain of command to know and deal with those missions - the Navy doesn't have flying boats ant the AF doesn't have boats that fly. If we finer tune the interoperability, I think that will get us to the peak performance we need to go further.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 10 at 2014 10:38 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 10 Jul 2014 10:38:35 -0400

Then we can all be SEALS

Sea- Ships and Subs
Air- Fixed Wing and Rotary
Land- Infantry
Support- MPs, Transportation, Supply, Maintenance, Comms

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 10 at 2014 2:59 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 10 Jul 2014 14:59:40 -0400

Sir, you just brought me back some memories from my very first post: should army and marines consolidate? It was meant with quite a bit of "resistance" from all sides.

Yeah, consolidation makes sense, but it's a slow, tedious, multi-generational process, that in my opinion will never fully happen. Many specialties, following footsteps of special forces and Seabees however will probably form a joint command in due time

Response by AN Eric Miller made Jul 24 at 2014 6:04 PM

AN Eric Miller — Thu, 24 Jul 2014 18:04:39 -0400

Personally, I prefer there are "Joint Chiefs of Staff" vs "Military Adviser" to the POTUS. Yes, there are more and more joint operations, yet each branch has their own capabilities... some examples,

During Bosnia and Desert Shield as the Navy needed to assist coverage in the Gulf we left Marine Air Squadrons (that were normally aboard ship) to support the Marines in Bosnia whilst the Navy detoured for "No-Fly" enforcement during a Pacific fleet switch-over (we were Atlantic fleet)...under a consolidated military this would be more difficult to accomplish...

If you are on the ground for example, would you want an extra time delay in ordering that crucial air-support? or would you prefer to keep the time down to a minimum so you get the EVAC faster?

Another thing is we might as well join the Police, State Troopers, Fire Dept and EMT's in the civilian world as they all have the same objective to protect the citizenry at home (and already have the same dispatchers).. I'm sure you'd love to get a speeding ticket from a Fire Truck or a Police officer manning the fire-hose or scaling the ladder in a fire..

One thing I have learned both in the Military and from FEMA Incident Command Classes, is "span of control", we are all there to accomplish one mission but have different duties that accomplish that based on our specific training.

Response by MCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 25 at 2014 11:27 AM

MCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 25 Jul 2014 11:27:01 -0400

Disagree ENS Izdepski, and here's the reason why;
1) Training that is redundant has already been or is moving to be more consolidated.
2) Your MP, SP, MA example is a good point, but they all have their own unique missions that really can only be served by wearing that branches uniform.
3) Look at all the intelligence units, each branch has specific and unique missions as well. As a Navy IS I have large amount of training and experience relating to sea and naval air threats, that is unique and specific for the Navy, and Army or Air Force couldn't or shouldn't be required to know these types of threats. Most of the intelligence community have served or will serve in a Joint command and there they will combine some of the same tools in a generalized way, but it is rarely at the tactical level its more of a strategic intelligence war plans. The cryptological community already does this, but a Navy CT needs to be on a ship or sub and the Army or Air Force CT's aren't qualified to do this; its unique for this specific mission.
4) Lets look at aviation, some of the platforms are or can be used by each branch, but lets look at why each branch has their own Air Force. When you see why the Navy for example has its specific mission it is clear that they are the forward deployed forces that can get close to the problem within a few days and they bring their entire support group with them. If we were to train all our aviators the same that would take enormous amount of extra time and money to qualify all our fighter jocks to land and take off from carriers. Each branch has its own unique mission with the Air Force being part of our strategic global strike as well as forward air to ground support for mainly the Army.
5) It would be too time consuming and expensive to have a generalized military, we would have to train everyone how to use a rifle and extinguish a fire on a ship. That just isn't practical.
6) As with the medics, I really don't know the specific types of training they do for each branch of service, but again it goes down to the generalization of the military, the medical staff needs to speak the "language" of the patient they are helping.
7) This is the kicker; the first politician that really tries to do this, and it would be the President, the public would consider him or her to be so UnAmerican that they would throw him out of office and he or she would never be able to get the Congress from his or the opposition party to help get anything else done. It's too much of an American tradition and the American people just wouldn't want to see it happen.

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Jul 27 at 2014 8:57 AM

Capt Jeff S. — Sun, 27 Jul 2014 08:57:03 -0400

The bigger an organization gets, the less efficient. So what would we gain? Just take a look at how efficiently our Federal Gov't runs and that ought to break you of that notion.

Response by Sgt W Hibshman made Sep 17 at 2014 7:32 PM

Sgt W Hibshman — Wed, 17 Sep 2014 19:32:02 -0400

As I kneel at my bedside tonight I will add to my long list of petitions; " Please Sir, let this nonsense die in committee."

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 27 at 2014 2:40 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 27 Nov 2014 14:40:31 -0500

dont think it really matters what we think. the government is going to do what it wants regardless!! thats why the Rangers now wear tan berets and the army has those great blend into or camo from nothing ACUs that have a 6 month wear out life!!

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2015 11:12 PM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 23:12:41 -0500

So you want to save money in hard economic times by consolidating all the branches together?

A move that will cost untold millions during a time of economic hardship?

Response by LTC George Shepherd made Jan 24 at 2015 6:45 PM

LTC George Shepherd — Sat, 24 Jan 2015 18:45:48 -0500

I am for ONE Military Medical Department. But the rest should be left as is.
LtCol (ret)

Response by Cpl Bill Johnson made Feb 4 at 2015 3:29 PM

Cpl Bill Johnson — Wed, 04 Feb 2015 15:29:34 -0500

Just a thought, but this doesn't seem to be working all that well for our Canadian friends. I don't care for the idea.

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 12 at 2015 11:16 AM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Jun 2015 11:16:36 -0400

I'm sorry but no you mentioned military police, well each of the branches military police are trained completely different. I am saying from experience working together is a nightmare.

Response by CPO Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 2 at 2016 3:46 PM

CPO Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 15:46:47 -0500

They are working on making a Joint Engineering Command JECOM just like SOCOM. They will still be in there service branch but the JCOM will have command and control and mission choices for assigning what Engineer units and or service units will provide support for Combatant commanders. The example would be and is being used now. Seabees and Red Horse support SOTF and Civil Humanitarian Missions. Heavy Engineers and Combat Engineers will fill the larger combat Engineering areas and maneuver combat missions. This will also give them the advantage to task tailor Engineering missions. This could be the example for other special skill sets. The funding would come from the branches but would be managed by the JECOM. This will also eliminate redundancies in mission and skill sets. All Engineers already go to Joint Schools. The only force that does not want to bye in is USMC.

Response by CPO Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2016 1:35 PM

CPO Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 13:35:45 -0500

Kind of like there is one variant of MRAP because they all have the same function..........Oh wait a minute....

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 3 at 2016 2:41 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 03 Jun 2016 02:41:43 -0400

My job (PAO) is the same in all branches. So, it would literally would have zero impact on us. My current job with AFN is ran by a majority of civilians (Defense Media Activity) and my chain of command, which consist of civilian, Navy, Army and Air Force, is only five people between myself, a SFC/E7, and the Secretary of Defense. I have also been in a CJTF unit and we all did the same thing there while working with all the branches and coalition in one office. So, it might not be as bad as it sounds. However, I would never see that happening just based on service pride alone.

Response by 1stSgt Daryl Allen made Aug 14 at 2017 9:09 AM

1stSgt Daryl Allen — Mon, 14 Aug 2017 09:09:41 -0400

I totally disagree with a one service. The Air Force broke away from the Army in 1947. The Navy and Marine are separated for there own reasons. We all may have similar training but each branch teaches differently and has their own traditipns. Would I want to be on a ship no thanks. I prefer land.

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 10 at 2017 12:05 PM

GySgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 10 Sep 2017 12:05:17 -0400

So the military is already structured appropriately. You have the Joint Staff for operational/combat/contingency control and the branches, which are the administrative structure. This is very similar to matrixed IT organizations where there are teams responsible for the care and training of employees, with projects as the "combat" organizations -- task organized based on the project's needs. I avoided using the expression "operations" because those are the standard business operations of the business.

Response by SMSgt Sheila Berg made Oct 16 at 2017 7:40 PM

SMSgt Sheila Berg — Mon, 16 Oct 2017 19:40:31 -0400

NO!!!

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 16 at 2017 8:14 PM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 16 Oct 2017 20:14:21 -0400

All of this has been discussed ad nauseum in the past. From a military standpoint, it makes absolutely no sense what so ever. Can you imagine the amount of training required to bring sailors to soldiering, soldiers to the sailing, Marines to the Army or the opposite? Each service has specific needs which are trained in recruits and new officers, which are merely confusing to sister service people.

Response by Sgt Marion Amick made May 17 at 2018 1:34 PM

Sgt Marion Amick — Thu, 17 May 2018 13:34:28 -0400

I gave zero problem with everyone belonging to the same group as long as they follow these simple rules. Abolish all other branches of service, make all current military forces go through USMC boot camp and earn the EGA, cut all the non-hackers out, and do not lower a single standard. Once they are all Marines, then have them go back to doing whatever it was they did before. Unless you follow that to a "T", then no, I don't thing forcing everyone into the same box is a good idea. And I'm gonna bet most people don't think so, either.

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made May 17 at 2018 8:10 PM

SGM Bill Frazer — Thu, 17 May 2018 20:10:30 -0400

No- you do understand the differences of equipment between branches and the way the troops are employed? Can you see USN MA's collecting /guarding POWs, or running convoy protection inland? USMC uses a whole different breed of aviation (rotary/fixed wing) Each service designed their branches to match the Services way of deploying and their equipment was done the same way- there is a big difference between an Army Bradley/Stryker and the USMC LAV's

Response by CMDCM Maurice Conner made Aug 20 at 2018 9:02 AM

CMDCM Maurice Conner — Mon, 20 Aug 2018 09:02:00 -0400

Hope it never happens...have seen it on the horizon for way too many years (40+).

Response by LCDR Ray Trygstad made May 30 at 2019 9:45 PM

LCDR Ray Trygstad — Thu, 30 May 2019 21:45:02 -0400

Canada's tried that. Didn't work. Amalgamated on 1968, started to return service-specific uniforms by 1985, returned everyone to their own service name in 2011, and their own insignia and in the case of the Royal Canadian Navy, ranks by 2015. Officially they're still amalgamated, but in reality, three services again.

Response by LtCol Paul Bowen made Sep 26 at 2019 2:58 AM

LtCol Paul Bowen — Thu, 26 Sep 2019 02:58:55 -0400

The Department of Defense can be compared to the NFL (without the anti-American Trash Behavior of the Athlete-Entertainers they employ).

Think of the DOD as a League of Armed Services. And OUR LEAGUE exists for the sole purpose of kicking the dog crap out of other “LEAGUES”, like the Chinese League, or the Russian League, or the Iranian League.

See a “Reality Pattern” here?

So overhauling the Armed Services in the name of simplifying expenditures is the “Tail Wagging the Dog.” MONEY EXPENDITURES is a LOGISTICS FUNCTION...not an ENEMY KILLING FUNCTION.

If killing while wearing a cool Beret color motivates you...then train up under those Beret Standards. If wearing an “Eagle, Globe & Anchor” insignia imbues you with a feeling of ARROGANT INVINCIBILITY, then I want those guys to be my AMPHIBIOUS BAYONET POINT with its own institutional “Economies of Force”; so having four BRANCHES of ARMED FORCES within the DOD WORLD-CLASS KILLING LEAGUE is a proven way to win.

Before we kicked off “OPERATION DESERT STORM”, the Iraqi Embassy in Beijing queried the CHINESE, “WHAT IS A U. S. Marine Corps?”

What a GREAT QUESTION. The Chinese had plenty of experiences to share with the Iraqis about being slaughtered by the Marines in both the Korean War AND Vietnam War.

Each independent Armed Service possess some capabilities that overlap, possess many complimentary capabilities or possess unique capabilities that require single-service specialization.

The USAF GPS Constellation Manager doesn’t need to know or train up for Amphibious Operations. The USMC is the Executive Agency under the Department of the Navy for that job. When necessary, we train the US Army.

That’s why you look at Military Capabilities in a HOLISTIC PICTURE.