Should Army and Marines (or components of) consolidate?

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 28 May 2014 05:49:49 -0400

Think objectively. Traditions, camaraderie aside. Both are somewhat similarly more combat-oriented than USN or USAF. Answer practically without putting down either one of them.

PS: Yes, some are taunting about USN and USAF consolidation or Air Force return to Army Air Corps. My take on that if it's practical, lessen bureaucracy, and make for a smoother communications pipeline amongst the DoD components, why not? Again, camaraderie and traditions aside for a min.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made May 28 at 2014 7:11 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 28 May 2014 07:11:07 -0400

NO!

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made May 28 at 2014 8:16 AM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Wed, 28 May 2014 08:16:59 -0400

Absolutely not... We can't maintain the quantity that the Army requires and the quality the Marines require simultaneously... Plus the institutional mindsets are very different. If they were to merge, then either we adopt Marine standards, in which case Army personnel will find themselves with far more responsibility than is traditionally the case, or we keep the Army methodology, in which case a lot of former Marines will suddenly find themselves being treated like children (at least compared to what they're used to)...

Though the uniforms would be a nice thing...

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made May 28 at 2014 9:07 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 28 May 2014 09:07:21 -0400

Keep them separate.....I'll echo that the Army and Marines have completely different missions. The Marine Corps is part of the Dept of Navy and designed primarily to be naval infantry conducting amphibious landings in support of naval operations. The Army's mission is "to fight and win our Nation’s wars by providing prompt, sustained land dominance across the full range of military operations and spectrum of conflict in support of combatant commanders."-The US Army Official Homepage. Combining the two would interfere with mission sets and be pointless. The purpose of consolidation usually is to cut costs and redcue redundant services...they do not provide redundant services and I doubt it would cut any costs.

Response by GySgt Joe Strong made May 28 at 2014 10:31 AM

GySgt Joe Strong — Wed, 28 May 2014 10:31:52 -0400

1) No.
2) Casualty rates are completely irrelevant to this discussion.

Response by SFC Rich Carey made May 28 at 2014 12:04 PM

SFC Rich Carey — Wed, 28 May 2014 12:04:49 -0400

Then let's put the Navy and Air Force together. Remember history, Army & Air Force / Navy & Marines

Response by MSG Martin C. made May 28 at 2014 12:38 PM

MSG Martin C. — Wed, 28 May 2014 12:38:32 -0400

I would take it a step further and consolidate all branches under United States Department of Defense. One umbrella one budgets within the department there will be the Air/Space-Naval/Marine force- Land Combat operations/ Land Combat support- special operations Commmad. No more crazy variation of uniforms, consolidation of training centers, one doctrine, same equipment, same quality of life for families. Within an all inclusive branch you will still have the opportunity to transfer and cross train pipelines for officer and warrant officer should be more accessible and the opportunities as enlisted would be endless. However I know this is just a crazy idea.

Response by MSgt Lancia Stewart made May 28 at 2014 2:34 PM

MSgt Lancia Stewart — Wed, 28 May 2014 14:34:29 -0400

The Army and the Marine Corps have completely separate missions. Wars vs Battles. To combine them would hamstring both.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made May 28 at 2014 6:01 PM

MSG Brad Sand — Wed, 28 May 2014 18:01:40 -0400

PO1,

First, if we put aside tradition, and camaraderie what do we have left? The Army and Marines lose more because they are doing the lion's share of the fighting...and surprising as it might sound, if you are flying over the battle field, or sitting on ship a few thousand miles away, it is hard to be injured or killed (I am not saying the the Navy or Air Force are not doing their part OR that they do not have men and women in harms way...but I think we can all admit the majority of the people in those two services are not deeply in the mix) in this type of warfare.

While I can understand why sailors might want the Marines off their ship, this only the case until the ship is boarded by the enemy. Each service does have its only role, that have changed over time. I do not think the Army wants to be doing ship security, while we could, and I don't think the Marines would be 'the Marines' if they had to grow to fill the mission of the Army.

This is something that has been discussed since the Marines were founded and it always fails for two reasons, the Navy doesn't want to let them go and the former Marines would rather cut out the heart of anyone who is really trying tm make it happen than allow it to happen.

Response by LCpl Steve Wininger made May 28 at 2014 7:31 PM

LCpl Steve Wininger — Wed, 28 May 2014 19:31:18 -0400

The Marines and the Army have two separate missions that would not be feasible to merge. I realize the threats we now face from terrorism may have changed some of the dynamics about national security, it should not change how we defend ourselves against other countries if there was to be a war.

The Marines are a quick reactionary force in places that the Army is not positioned to defend quickly such as the Persian Gulf, Mediterranean, and Pacific regions.

The Marines mission is to secure and move on. With that said, it has been nearly thirty years since I served, and I am sure the dynamics have changed some since then, so I can only speak of my experience from when I served.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made May 28 at 2014 7:43 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 28 May 2014 19:43:16 -0400

The missions of both the Army and the Marine Corps are unique. This question would be like suggesting that the Navy and the Coast Guard merge. While Marines and Soldiers both qualify as infantry fighters first, the mission for each service is designed to meet the varying needs of the nation and the Defense Department.

Besides (this is said in jest), what would the Navy due without the 'Men's Department'.

I am not sure why you even put a statement in your question regarding combat loses. Do you believe that consolidation should be based on loss of life? How many Navy Hospital Corpsman or Air Force Security Forces would need to be lost before we should consider these departments for consolidation?

In the spirit of your question, the issue really is, 'why is there a continued divergence of the original intent of each service branch of the military?' There is an Air Force, but Marines, Navy and Army have multiple types of aircraft.

We are really already one fighting force under the DoD, we just have become 'territorial' of some capabilities within each service and seek to justify budgets.

Let us all work harder to convince the American public that now is not the time to cut the defense budget, but rather increase it and perhaps reduce the ever growing entitlement programs. Putin is a problem. China and Cyber is one of the fastest growing threats to our nation.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made May 28 at 2014 8:02 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 28 May 2014 20:02:17 -0400

The Army and Marines should stay separate because they have different missions. I don't think the Army is going to start amphibious assaults anytime soon.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made May 28 at 2014 9:30 PM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Wed, 28 May 2014 21:30:05 -0400

Based on my experience working with Marines in Somalia, the Marine Corps is a scaled down version of the Army built for shorter duration deployments. One of the Marines' ground missions as an independent fighting force is to provide the "shock and awe" effect and pave the way for follow on ground forces - a.k.a. the Army. The Marines are not equipped with the extensive logistics channels that the Army has and will depend on us for sustainment after a month or so on the ground. Get in, establish a presence, get relieved in place by long term, follow on units within 30 to 60 days then re-deploy to get ready for the next mission. Anyways that's what I was taught - by a Marine.

Can we consolidate - maybe, should we, IMHO, no. Remember, the Marines also provide maritime security and embassy security. does the Army want to take that on?

Response by SGT David Dodge made May 29 at 2014 1:07 AM

SGT David Dodge — Thu, 29 May 2014 01:07:30 -0400

We as a nation would lose to much capability that the USMC bring in their amphibious approach. I agree when some say it is an out dated form a assault, but we never know what skills we are going to be in need of in the future.

Response by Cpl Robert Clark made May 29 at 2014 12:20 PM

Cpl Robert Clark — Thu, 29 May 2014 12:20:30 -0400

I always thought Pg 1 of the US Army Survival Manual stated "Call the Marines"

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2014 1:58 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 30 May 2014 13:58:28 -0400

Best I've seen it explained:

"The Army is a job, but the Marine Corps is an identity."

Quantity vs. Quality both services would suffer if integrated.

I doubt it would work out.

Response by Sgt Seth Busse made May 30 at 2014 11:33 PM

Sgt Seth Busse — Fri, 30 May 2014 23:33:28 -0400

As a Marine Veteran I feel like I can say more then other branches, other then the army guys, in this case. I think the Marine Corps is really getting Superfluous. I think we have a Marine Corps because congress, tradition, the American people, or whoever want a Marine Corps. So in summation I think the Marine Corp and the Army could merge but I don't think it'll happen. Their would not be any traction on that issue.

Response by SPC Charles Brown made May 31 at 2014 1:50 AM

SPC Charles Brown — Sat, 31 May 2014 01:50:32 -0400

Personally I believe that this is a merger that should never be allowed to happen. Each branch of the service has its own mission that they excel at, especially the Army and Marines. While there are overlaps in the mission performances such as closing with the enemy and destroying them in an expedient manner. The Marines have the capability to provide their own air cover in close in combat which would be beneficial to both branches, however, the ties between the Army and the Air Force out weigh the potential benefits of using Marine air cover. This rates right up there with stupid idea of combining all military into one single branch. Someone please stop the insanity of combining things that just simply WILL NOT work together. So much for my .02.

Response by SSgt Stephanie Luck made May 31 at 2014 8:28 AM

SSgt Stephanie Luck — Sat, 31 May 2014 08:28:18 -0400

NO! I mean no offense to the Army but we earned our eagle globe and anchor and if you asked any Marine that question, it's almost an insult. I have nothing against the army. Each branch serves a purpose but being a Marine is a title we carry with pride. It's sacred to us. There will always be a need for the army and there will always be a need for Marines. I respect other branches but we are "the few, the proud, the Marines". To just put us in with the Army isn't how we trained and not what we signed up for. SEMPER FI

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made May 31 at 2014 4:20 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 31 May 2014 16:20:21 -0400

A lot of Marines join the Army and Army National Guard anyway. But realistically though the Army Reserve needs to be disbanded and merged in the National Guard. The only two branches should be the Army and Navy with the Marines remaining the Navy's group force.

Response by SPC Eric Blay made May 31 at 2014 5:07 PM

SPC Eric Blay — Sat, 31 May 2014 17:07:14 -0400

Some big issues as I have been in both serves at different times. One would be traditions the Marines are big on the traditions and history which make the foundations of the Corps itself. The Army from my time serves seems to be vacant of such things. Boot camp vastly different in many ways Marine boot at the time I went threw was and is vastly superior to the Army version were they didn't take the time to teach history, marching or proper marksmanship and the physical standards are laughable.

Now this one really pisses me off as the Marines train under a universal standard the Army has a lack of standard and leaves it to each individual unit which I believe as bad for business. If you are sent to a different unit then you start from a relative scratch and have to learn there way once again a universal training plan is best for all. Now the second part of pissing me off is Marine Corps Orders vs Army regulation. Marine corps orders are set in stone period not up for your interpretation where as the Armys take is hey if your a NCO you can add to it but not take away. Once again that is not a regulation its a suggestion when open for interpretation.

To continue Army promotions system needs a complete overall as in many cases it favors someone that can vomit questions out of a guide or if that person is the flavor of the month so to speak. As for the Marine Corps cutting scores a far better judge of the whole person than that of which you can spit back out to a board.

PT standards are for Marines in my opinion once again are far superior.

Now in closing the mentality of both branches is vastly different and would not be able to mesh at all if such a merger would t occur and the last point which has been brought up earlier is quality vs quantity and the Marines win that hands down.

Now I am not saying there aren't quality Army folk there are but the Army has many things that needs a major overhaul. Should such a merger ever happen then the Army should be brought up the Marine standards and not the other way around.

Response by Cpl Ray Fernandez made May 31 at 2014 5:14 PM

Cpl Ray Fernandez — Sat, 31 May 2014 17:14:11 -0400

It would be a tough job based on the differences in the roles each play. The Marine role has traditionally been based on being expeditionary and a small light force. The Army is larger to take territory and to fight longer extended missions. One way or another it would be detrimental to the missions each separate branch carries out. What would happen to the fixed wing aviation of the Marine Corps in an Army? Would this change you propose move the Corps be a matter of moving the Marine Corps from the Dept of the Navy to the Dept of the Army, or are you suggesting a full on merger of forces and equipment? Some of the equipment that the Corps uses is specifically designed for the amphibious mission which is part of our existence. I think it shouldn't be done for those reasons.

Response by SGT Jack Mays, III made May 31 at 2014 5:15 PM

SGT Jack Mays, III — Sat, 31 May 2014 17:15:56 -0400

I had no problem interacting with Marines. However, in my opinion, the consolidation of the Army with the Marines wouldn't be in the best interest of either branch, due to their wide and varied techniques and tactics. How would it even work at the Pentagon? Has anyone even addressed that question?

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made May 31 at 2014 9:53 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 31 May 2014 21:53:20 -0400

Marines are shock troops, they go in hard and fast, and are not really prepared or equipped for the long haul as the Army is. If we got rid of the Marines we would have to significantly boost numbers and equipment for SOF and Rangers to maintain that capability. Also the Navy needs the ground force capability the Marines provide them.

Response by COL Vincent Stoneking made Jun 1 at 2014 12:31 AM

COL Vincent Stoneking — Sun, 01 Jun 2014 00:31:35 -0400

No. I don't want to have to learn how to roll my sleeves all wrong. :-)

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 1 at 2014 3:26 AM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 01 Jun 2014 03:26:44 -0400

No. Different missions and different institutional mindsets. The Army has the assets to conduct large-scale "take-and-hold" warfare. The Marines are the fiercest expeditionary fighting force in the world. It works and it need not change.

Response by Cpl Glynis Sakowicz made Jun 1 at 2014 11:51 AM

Cpl Glynis Sakowicz — Sun, 01 Jun 2014 11:51:26 -0400

Their missions are not the same, so it would be more like the Army taking in a very large special forces command.
I have always thought of the Army as a large mallet that will roll over most anything given time, while the Corps is more like a "When it absolutely has to be done in two days" sort of thing.
I suppose, if it was to come to pass, it could be done, but you have to remember, most Marines join because it IS hard, and because it IS the Corps, so it might be one heck of a fight trying to pull the two of them together, but I don't think either side of that puzzle would enjoy the process or the results.

Response by 1stLt Kevin Paige made Jun 1 at 2014 4:29 PM

1stLt Kevin Paige — Sun, 01 Jun 2014 16:29:24 -0400

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2014 12:17 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 12:17:53 -0400

No. Period

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2014 12:26 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 12:26:20 -0400

PO1, I think this is just a dumb thread without merit, to put down any Marine, or Soldier, or Airman, Naval personnel, Coast Guard Personnel is just plain reckless.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 3 at 2014 10:54 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Jun 2014 10:54:56 -0400

I don't think so.

The Marines exist as a shock force. In and out - direct engagement. Get the mission done.

The Army exists as a large-scale maneuver and occupation force.

The two are not one and the same. Sure, some of history's greatest conflicts have seen the Army and the Marines working hand-in-hand on certain operations, but the training, methodologies, history, mindset, mission, and capabilities of the two are unique and should be preserved as such.

I have nothing against our brethren in the Marine Corps, but they earned what they got, same as we did.

No reason to combine.

If any services "need" to combine - they need to sack the Air Force and bring it back into the Army as the Army Air Corps - while reducing the size of the overall branch. In my opinion.

Response by Cpl Victor B Johnson made Jun 3 at 2014 11:55 AM

Cpl Victor B Johnson — Tue, 03 Jun 2014 11:55:13 -0400

Great question! As I see it, both branches have different roles and they are stemmed from the philosophies taught in basic training. One branch will have to absorb the other and a lot of the core values will become convoluted.

Personally, I think it looks good in the movies but real life application is pretty frightening. Besides, both branches do the same as the USAF and then some. Maybe they can be re-consolidated with the Army.

The Navy & Marine Corps have a great relationship as it stands. lol

Response by Cpl D. Blake Wilson made Jun 3 at 2014 12:38 PM

Cpl D. Blake Wilson — Tue, 03 Jun 2014 12:38:27 -0400

No. Because the Marine Corps will never accept a Bergdhal, Hasan, etc. Marines will certainly not promote sh!t-birds in absentia to make nice with said shi!t-birds parents.

Response by Cpl Reginald Whitcomb Jr. made Jun 3 at 2014 3:44 PM

Cpl Reginald Whitcomb Jr. — Tue, 03 Jun 2014 15:44:27 -0400

Absolutely not!

If anything were to happen they should consolidate with the Navy, as they are part of the Department of the Navy already.

It would be foolish to think this anyway, as no other service brings the level of fight to the enemy that the USMC does, and you all know it.

Response by MAJ Jim Woods made Jun 3 at 2014 4:05 PM

MAJ Jim Woods — Tue, 03 Jun 2014 16:05:09 -0400

OK...... they can combine but I want their uniforms. Practical useful cammies and the best looking Dress Uniform on the planet. I feel like a doorman in mine. And when you blouse your boots in it it's "Welcome to Dorksville"........don't get me started on the Mess Uniforms.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Jun 4 at 2014 2:39 AM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Wed, 04 Jun 2014 02:39:21 -0400

There are some Army guys serving on ships already. Also there are a lot of Support Vessels that the Navy uses that are actually Army Property I don't think the Vast Majority of Soldiers would like being aboard ship all the time. The Marines are none of fond of it but they at least they expect it. My father was a Marine and he was not really fond of flat bottomed ships actually he was usually sea sick.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 4 at 2014 11:38 AM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 04 Jun 2014 11:38:52 -0400

To even suggest this demonstrates that you have no functional understanding of either branch. They serve completely different missions, and both are necessary. The Marine Corps invades countries, and the Army occupies them. The Marines are too small to accomplish the army's mission, and the Army is too big, and slow to accomplish the Marine Corps' mission. What a silly question.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 4 at 2014 12:50 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 04 Jun 2014 12:50:16 -0400

Nope. Each service has a unique mission with unique capabilities. We need both.

Response by MAJ Bill Darling made Jun 4 at 2014 1:04 PM

MAJ Bill Darling — Wed, 04 Jun 2014 13:04:47 -0400

I've posed the same question to my Navy coworkers. They are CB's and are more familiar with the Army than most Navy guys. But they didn't give me a great reason why they disagreed.

They said that the Marines travel with the USN and can respond quickly and cited the amphibious mission. I noted that the USMC rarely employs amphibious warfare (note their initial incursion into Afghanistan and significant missions in Iraq and Afghanistan). I also noted how the 82d is strongly affiliated with elements of the USAF but is nevertheless not a subordinate department of it.

In short I'd say that the Army and Marines have a greater mission overlap and commonality than with either of the other two services.

Response by SSG Laureano Pabon made Jun 4 at 2014 2:30 PM

SSG Laureano Pabon — Wed, 04 Jun 2014 14:30:17 -0400

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5KeGccP9Jk

JIM NABORS ( GOMER PYLE )-THE IMPOSSIBLE DREAM

JIM NABORS SINGING ' THE IMPOSSIBLE DREAM ON THE GOMER PYLE SHOW.THE BEST VERSION OF THIS SONG.

Response by CWO4 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 4 at 2014 3:13 PM

CWO4 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 04 Jun 2014 15:13:20 -0400

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Jun 4 at 2014 3:18 PM

SSG Robert Burns — Wed, 04 Jun 2014 15:18:07 -0400

If they did then who would the Marines have to look up to?

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Jun 4 at 2014 4:17 PM

LTC Paul Labrador — Wed, 04 Jun 2014 16:17:46 -0400

After reading the responses, I'm seeing a lot of the emotional response vs. an objective, analytical response. To some extent, that doesn't surprise me. There is not branch in our military that carries more myth and mystique than the Marine Corps. And Marines themselves are the first to buy into and push the mystique (again, not a big deal. They seemed to have learned early that PR is important. Something the Army as a whole is not as good at). However, to really answer this question we DO need to look at it analytically.

Currently Marines are structured to be medium-weight, combined arms expeditionary force that has been optimized for seaborne deployment. Expeditionary warfare is not unique to the Marines. The Army has it's own expeditionary units (82nd, 101st, Rangers) that can get to the fight faster than the Marines can. The big difference is that the Marines come with more firepower and a more robust sustainment ability (30 days vs 3 days). Also, Marines have interoperability with the Navy that is in their DNA. Their officers are trained from day 1 side-by-side with naval officers so that they are intimately familiar with naval operations. Amphibious warfare is also a stated raison d'etre by the Marines. They have essentially taken that highly specialized role as their own and become the SME's for it.

On the other side of the coin, however, beyond force structure allowing for quicker deployment and the highly specialized amphibious role, everything else the Marines bring to the strategic table is a duplication of Army capability, and not necessarily a more capable duplication. While Marines have better strategic mobility than comparable Army units, they give up firepower and protection to do it. And once they are on the ground, they don't fight much differently than a comparable Army unit. So again, this begs the question, is there much the Marines bring that the Army can't do? The cold, analytic answer is no. The Army is capable of taking over the Marine mission. Now, this would not be without some hiccups. First the, the Army would need to develop a force structure that would allow them to conduct the Marine mission. The closest we have to a "Marine-style" MAGTF is the Strykers, but even that is not a complete 1:1 mirror. We would also have to do some training changes to accomodate the amphibious mission and requirements. Finally, there would need to be more integration with the Navy at the operational level. This will require Army officers to have more and sustained exposure to naval culture and doctrine to create the level of interoperability that the Marines and Navy currently have. In short, consolidaiton is doable, but not without some significant humps to to overcome...and that is not even addressing the emotional reaction that will come about with any plans to dissolve the Corps and roll it under the Army.

Response by SPC Jason Neal made Jun 5 at 2014 9:28 AM

SPC Jason Neal — Thu, 05 Jun 2014 09:28:48 -0400

All I know is that, as a former 11B, I get on better with my 0311 brothers than I do soldiers of different MOS's. I would be happy to have them. I never saw much point in having two different branches whose missions were so similar, at least in OIF. Seeing as how the Army has executed more beach landings than the Corps, and that such conventional tactics haven't been used since WW2, I don't see the harm in it.

Response by Sgt David Holmes made Jun 6 at 2014 2:13 AM

Sgt David Holmes — Fri, 06 Jun 2014 02:13:13 -0400

I want to first make it clear that I have the highest respect for all branches of our Armed Forces and the brave Americans who volunteer to make the sacrifice of service. (Which I consider an honor)...

The bickering and mudslinging on this post almost made me not want to chime in.....I don't really care whose is bigger, just take a piss already and move on.

To the question at hand, I believe that each of our branches has its own unique mission, philosophy, training, customs, and history and this is one of the aspects that I value about our Armed Forces. Yes, there are numerous mission overlaps and of course problems that are sometimes caused by the logistics of inter-branch coordination but, that being said, I think that we have a pretty good set up that has been working well for a long time. I don't see a need to change it and honestly don't think there are many who would want to change it.

Out of a curiosity and an interest in history, I wonder what the driving force was behind the creation of the Air Force (and therefore, separation of the Army Air Corps)...was there a lesson learned from working with the British in WW2? Was it more of a financial decision? Logistical? Just curious (and not at all questioning if they should be separate.)

Just my thoughts. Semper Fi

Response by MAJ Ron Peery made Jun 6 at 2014 12:04 PM

MAJ Ron Peery — Fri, 06 Jun 2014 12:04:42 -0400

Absolutely not! Army and Marines have different missions, different skillsets, and different doctrine. Marines belong to the Navy Department for a reason. How many Army troops want to be the security force on an aircraft carrier, for instance. And, sad to say, many in the Army lack the aggressiveness of a Marine. That's part of the training. In the Army, your training is focused on your branch assignment. I know soldiers who have no idea what TA 50 is. But all Marines are riflemen first. I wish the Army had the same philosophy. We need both branches, as they are, doing what they do best, and working together.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 9 at 2014 5:49 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 09 Jun 2014 05:49:55 -0400

Keep them separate, but take away the air arm and the heavy stuff. Make them Marine infantry like they were intended.

But, I'm still waiting for the Air Force to come come back.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 9 at 2014 10:45 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 09 Jun 2014 10:45:13 -0400

No, and here's why:

The Marine Corps fall under the Department of the Navy. The Army has it's own Department, and has been standing strong since the Revolution. Objectively, by this view, this Army does not need the Marines.

Though you requested to keep traditions and such aside, PO1 Dronzin, those are the very things that would cause chaos should the two branches combine. Twice in my career, I have had a Marine who came off Active Duty, join my Army Reserve unit. Going from AD to RC or Marines to Army alone is a big enough challenge. APFT, commands, standards, traditions were all difficult for these former Marines to catch onto. I know if I went into a company of Marines and tried to assimilate, I'd be picked out and probably beat on.

The similarities end at Combat-Oriented. Marines were first created to guard Navy ships from mutiny. Army has always been the first line of ground defense for the USA. So, forgetting all the political, logistical, and egotistical hullabaloo, it simply would never work. You would have to retrain both branches to become one, and honestly, the majority are already stuck in their ways.

Response by SSG Laureano Pabon made Jun 10 at 2014 12:42 PM

SSG Laureano Pabon — Tue, 10 Jun 2014 12:42:49 -0400

In the year 2314 yes, but in 2014 no, we still have North Korea to look at and we need all the branches to the Armed Forces to remain in tact.
The USA is not out of it yet.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 10 at 2014 1:02 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 Jun 2014 13:02:51 -0400

As I ponder the question, "Should Army and Marines consolidate?", I try to look at history and determine how we arrive at our current situation. The following comment is not meant to disparage: anyone, service, branch, ethnicity, religion, genus, phylum, sex or sports fan, so lay off the brewing condemnation.

Historically (give or take some facts) the army was founded by various state militias brought together by congress and given some leadership to centralize their purpose in defending young colonies against perceived aggression.

Marine Corps history is oft disputed as to origin and timing. However, every single Marine who has earned their EGA will be able to tell you the popular institutional history of the creation of the Corps and its birth place in a bar (Tun Tavern 1775)

From those very basic beginnings, the two forces have traveled different paths and established their places in American and world history. The Army has established itself as a premier war fight machine, which for the the better part of the last century focused on containment and perceived threat of communism, most notably in Eastern Europe and in Asia. (remember 30,000 view, absolute comments about special missions, units, equipment are really irrelevant and unnecessary dialogue to this statement)

Marines for the better part of the last century have focused on planning future engagements. As a truly expeditionary force (yes I know the Army folks are going to jump in and say how expeditionary you are, we get it) in readiness, containment of communism was not the focus.

The Army thinks, trains, behaves & fights like an Army and rightfully so. It is monumental and to some degree cumbersome. But effective in developing large unit tactics to overwhelm the enemy and where them down over time and sustained operations.

Marines are brawlers, they want to fight for no other reason than it is fun. (Insert your favorite Gen. Mattis quote here) We get in quick, punch first, punch hard and then start drinking.

What I am attempting to relay is that Army and Marines are two sides of a coin. Or as a poster stated in another thread, (paraphrasing) two legs for the same body. There is a reason some folks join the Army and others become Marines, they have different mind sets and different ideologies. I think those differences are what make each essential and cannot be integrated or assimilated without changing the essential core of what they are.

The Army has made great advances in the technology of warfare and should be rightfully proud of their achievements; however, the Marines have made great advances in the art of warfare as well and that should be recognized and considered.

Respect the diversity, celebrate the difference understand the capability and utilize the resource to the best of its ability.

Response by MSgt James Cuneo made Jun 11 at 2014 3:14 PM

MSgt James Cuneo — Wed, 11 Jun 2014 15:14:47 -0400

Not at all! Both organizations have two different roles. As a Retired 0369/0313 MSgt and have worked with the Army numerous times the mentality of the Marine Corps is 100 times different than the Army. We should simply go to how it was after Desert Storm and just reduce the forces back to where every command is at 75-80% man power. Get rid of the upper commanders who are costing the military more money than 5 PFC's put together and make them wear dual hats as we did back after Desert Storm.

Response by SMSgt Paul Ringheiser made Jun 11 at 2014 3:40 PM

SMSgt Paul Ringheiser — Wed, 11 Jun 2014 15:40:04 -0400

Short answer - as a prior service Marine who retired from the AF Res and worked as a civilian for both the Navy (18 months) and Army (26 years) - No - Missions are significantly different, though I admit to a lot of cross over and commonality.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 11 at 2014 4:36 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Jun 2014 16:36:51 -0400

No.
If anything, the Marines should stick with their original mission of Mariners... i.e. the Navy land assault force.
If anything, some changes should be made: the USMC air force merged into the Navy. The AF, Army and Navy's medical assets, EXCEPT medics/corpsmen, should be merged into the HHS.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 11 at 2014 7:19 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Jun 2014 19:19:04 -0400

Absolutely not! We each have our roles and of course bias, I'm a Marine, not a soldier.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Aug 16 at 2014 5:01 AM

SFC Mark Merino — Sat, 16 Aug 2014 05:01:47 -0400

We have always tolerated each other when it was hitting the fan over the decades, but we are entirely different animals. The Marines are experts at what they do. The Army are experts at what we do. We are better off meeting face to face when the battle has been won and having a beer together.......then getting into a drunken brawl and being thrown into the brig together. Nothing but love, Marines. Nothing but love. Semper Fi.

Response by SGT Richard H. made Aug 16 at 2014 10:30 AM

SGT Richard H. — Sat, 16 Aug 2014 10:30:04 -0400

Service pride and tradition aside, the two services have different missions. I vote no.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 16 at 2014 11:41 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 16 Aug 2014 11:41:30 -0400

The way I see it, the Marines are the hammer, the Army is the anvil. There's a reason you don't see a blacksmith trying to use two hammers or two anvils.

Response by Sgt Jennifer Mohler made Aug 16 at 2014 9:17 PM

Sgt Jennifer Mohler — Sat, 16 Aug 2014 21:17:02 -0400

When was the last time you saw the Army patrolling the world on navel ships? Sorry, we have different missions. The Marine Corps is an expeditionary strike force while the Army is for sustained land operations. ALL branches of service have their own niche that makes the U.S. defense what we are. All functions must be served. Insult aside, it would be a fatal flaw to rid ourselves of any branch.

Response by Cpl Dennis F. made Aug 17 at 2014 2:44 PM

Cpl Dennis F. — Sun, 17 Aug 2014 14:44:57 -0400

Quite a few years ago I had the opportunity to sit down with a defected Cuban counter-insurgency Lt. This some thing he told me that they were told by command.

"If the Marines land, fall back. If they have an objective, they will take it, regardless of cost." "We will wait for the army to take over, after the assault, and fight them."

My answer: NO, even our adversaries know these differences, and respect them.

Response by Cpl D. Blake Wilson made Aug 18 at 2014 4:54 PM

Cpl D. Blake Wilson — Mon, 18 Aug 2014 16:54:34 -0400

I find it funny that so many soldiers, not Marines, but soldiers think they know what the Marine Corps mission is. It is NOT the Navy's land force. It IS an Expeditionary Force in Readiness. This means, their mission is different than the army. While the Marines do operate on the same battlefield as the army, this is not the nature of their mission, but just further proof that Marines are more capable than the army.

Response by SGT Suraj Dave made Aug 19 at 2014 4:40 PM

SGT Suraj Dave — Tue, 19 Aug 2014 16:40:25 -0400

Its funny, the marines think they are so much better, but how many times has the Army come to their rescue?

Anyways, if you truly understand the concept of the Marines you would get it. They are naval infantry, by doctrine, they assault from amphibious vehicles.

Also, I have heard repeatedly that the POTUS can use the marines for a certain length of time without congress approval, therefore they are always "the first" while congress decides if everyone else will go to war or not.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 20 at 2014 9:03 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 20 Aug 2014 21:03:19 -0400

i would have to say no. due to the fact of pride, both have a long history of great service to the nation, we wouldn't consolidate the two one would just merge in to the other and we would just get rid of one of the branches. that would be the end result and that in my opinion would be an insult to those who served in either branch

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 20 at 2014 9:20 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 20 Aug 2014 21:20:59 -0400

No! However, if a boat can't get you there, the Army should be doing ground pounding! The Marines can have the beaches, islands and maybe the rivers if they're big enough.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 20 at 2014 10:47 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 20 Aug 2014 22:47:12 -0400

Combinining the Navy, execuse me the Marines would be a bad idea. It would be trying to mix oil with water. Both entities serve a unique purpose but at the same time compliment each other. Although I really dislike saying it, the Marines would be bring a lot to the table when it comes to discipline and traditions if that were to happened. I have been in 18 and 9 active I really appreciate the tradition of discipline that the Marines have been able to keep (outside looking in) despite of many changes.

Response by Sgt Justin Hadaway made Aug 21 at 2014 12:08 AM

Sgt Justin Hadaway — Thu, 21 Aug 2014 00:08:27 -0400

The only way to combine the two would be for the army to have to join the USMC. Wouldn't work any other way. Marines are trained way harder with way more discipline. Youd cause the Marines to go on strike if they ( army)didnt earn the eagle globe and anchor .

Response by LCpl Steve Smith made Aug 21 at 2014 1:47 AM

LCpl Steve Smith — Thu, 21 Aug 2014 01:47:55 -0400

This subject has been brought before congress and the white house on more then one occasion as well as getting rid of the Corps all together. But as now it hasn't happened. the corps has battled to be and both the Army High Brass and Navy High Brass has agreed with the Marine Corps that it needs to be it's own entity. Tho there are many Cross over duty's They Army has their main duty and the Corps has theirs....The times seem to have both doing the same job right now...each's main tasks as a unit will always be different. The Marines as a Fighting Force will always have the job of Advancing the main Fighting/ Defencive Force in Campaigns overseas when it comes to Boots on the ground. The Army as a whole secures the ground already taken by the advanced force.
what I said above does not include Special Forces and Special Operations nor the C.I.A. Field Operatives that pull from the military's spec ops.
Depending on the conflict there are Co-ops where they do the same jobs. and the history of the Marine Corps has always been Amphibious Assault and ship protection for the Navy. But as a Regular Force The Army and The Marine Corps Have different and important jobs. That's why the Marine corps is still around as an individual unit. If you read up on Marine Corps history you will see how many times they have wanted to meld or disband the Corps.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 21 at 2014 2:28 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 21 Aug 2014 02:28:13 -0400

No! We had Marines on our FOB in Iraq and while i enjoyed serving with my brothers in arms there are differently two different mine sets on how things are to be done. As stated before both are combat services with the same goals in mine, its just the getting there that is different.

SSG Dan Long (Retired)
USARNG

Response by 1SG Michael Minton made Aug 21 at 2014 9:49 AM

1SG Michael Minton — Thu, 21 Aug 2014 09:49:14 -0400

I have been in both branches of service and proud of both, but i say keep them seperate because they have different missions. but the main reason is we need a large army, the marines believe in the FEW that can make it. example: my platoon (and the other 3) started training with 80 recruits each, all platoons graduated with low 30s. thats what they mean only the few. and the marine corps has no problem losing that many in training. thats also why they are a small force. the army on the other hand are invasion forces and have to be a large force, they will not and could not accept that many losses in training. so there is a different standard in order to maintain troops levels. I was also a Drill Sgt in the Army, when you lose only 10% of your recruits to training, you have to explain it to the entire chain of command up to the commanding general. However, at the risk of losing my military career, my recruits got marine corps and army mixed basic training. they excelled over other platoons every cycle. but i did have to answer to the chain of command on more then one occasion. but it is two different standards in order to maintain each branch for their missions. so we couldnt change the army training standards because our army would be half the size we need for their mission as a invasion force, yet we do not need to lower the marine standard of only the few can make it through training. Keep them seperate and proud. I loved them both!

Response by Capt Andrew Cosgrove made Aug 21 at 2014 11:01 AM

Capt Andrew Cosgrove — Thu, 21 Aug 2014 11:01:41 -0400

Practically speaking...
- The Marine Corps 194, 000 Active Duty with 40,000 Reserve
- US Army 546,047 Active Duty with 559,244 in Reserve and National Guard

Budgets
- Army $244.9 Billion (31.8%)
- USMC $40 Billion (4% total is derived from the allotment taken from the Navy)

US Army mission
- Preserving the peace and security and providing for the defense of the United States, the Commonwealths and possessions and any areas occupied by the United States
- Supporting the national policies
- Implementing the national objectives
- Overcoming any nations responsible for aggressive acts that imperil the peace and security of the United States

USMC mission
- The seizure or defense of advanced naval bases and other land operations to support naval campaigns;
- The development of tactics, technique, and equipment used by amphibious landing forces in coordination with the Army and Air Force
- Such other duties as the President may direct.

CAN the Army do what the Marine Corps does? Yes. Everything the Marines have done the Army has done. Amphibious capabilities? Absolutely, Normandy comes to mind. So the question then becomes who is more efficient or who gets a job done with fewer resources.

The Marine corps is a group of people whose entire existence is based upon offensive combat. The idea of defense is taught to Marines but only in the context of defending the area from attack and then mounting a counter attack. The basic question all Marine commanders ask themselves is "how do we bring the fight to the enemy." The Marine corps is a tool to be used by the President to achieve regional goals. The Marine corps is very good at this.

The Army is like any Army that has come before it. It is an organization who's entire purpose is to achieve the global strategic vision of the US. It has many different sub organizations to do this.

The argument then becomes why can't the Corps do what it does by being absorbed by the Army. I would assert that the question would have to boil down to money. The Corps is part of the Navy so we are merely switching Umbrellas. The true issue would have to be why doesn't the Army absorb the Navy.

If one is to argue that absorbing the Corps makes sense then the same logic would dictate that the absorption of the Navy would make greater sense. Why have a separate organization to project the power of the US accross the globe. Just put everyone together under one umbrella and call it the military.

Well we already do that, we just have different names for it.

The simple fact of the matter is that to change the current organization of the various armed services would not create a synergistic effect. In fact, it would create a negative effect due to the specialties involved.

Taking this out of the realm of the military and into the business world, it is the same theory as to why you have an accounting department in a computer manufacturing business and why you have outside vendors supplying you your mother boards and power supplies.

Apple does not make its own RAM modules or its own processors. They buy from others and put it all together.

Organizations specialize in their functions because that is what makes them the most effective at beating the competition.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 21 at 2014 11:03 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 21 Aug 2014 11:03:16 -0400

I think total consolidation of the Army and the Corps would be a bad idea, but I do think that a consolidated and free-standing Infantry could work. I never had any issues working with 0311s or 0341s, but things got dicey whenever we had to deal with other MOSs. So perhaps a group of nothing but groundpounders who borrowed support (a la Navy corpsmen) would give us a good result.

Response by CSM James Winslow made Aug 21 at 2014 11:11 AM

CSM James Winslow — Thu, 21 Aug 2014 11:11:17 -0400

While some of the actions that each service performs are similar, (close combat, forced entry and security) the overarching missions are very different. The Marines are an "opening force" outfitted to conduct opening engagements in a theater conflict, while the Army is more of a sustained combat, ground gaining, position holdingand occupation and stability force. While both services are compatible and can assume each other's roles, the current state of operations is leaning towards using the Marines in their more traditional role (think "back to WWII"). I agree that at some point we will have to go to three Military branches with specialized components (Land Forces, Air Forces and Sea Forces), each with units specialized in specific operations (for the "Land Forces" think "Combat operations Forces", including Breaching and Entry Forces (which include Beach operations, Airborne and Air Assualt Operations and Expeditionary operations)" Support Forces (Logistic, Transport and Supply operations) and Sustainment Forces (or those operations involved with Sustaining the theater of war or area of conflict).

Response by CPL Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 21 at 2014 12:36 PM

CPL Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 21 Aug 2014 12:36:05 -0400

No, up until the 50's there was only three branches of the armed forces the Army, Navy, and the Cost Guard. The "Army Air Corps" went to whats now the Air Force. So if anything the Air Force should consolidate back with the Army

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 21 at 2014 12:43 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 21 Aug 2014 12:43:01 -0400

Marines win battles Army wins wars. That's how an old Marine explained the differences to me many years ago.

Response by Sgt Michael Baselice made Aug 21 at 2014 1:08 PM

Sgt Michael Baselice — Thu, 21 Aug 2014 13:08:20 -0400

Absolutely not. Set aside all the emotional and "Service Pride" arguments for a moment, the two services have different missions. The United States Marine Corps is an Amphibious, Expeditionary Assault Force - 1st to Fight. The Army is an built around behemoth logistical and infrastructural occupational force.

The Army is neither Amphibious /Littoral-focused nor built to rapidly respond. Marines can be on the ground within 24 hours. The Army generally takes 30 days or more to mobilize.

Response by Sgt Daniel V. made Aug 21 at 2014 2:58 PM

Sgt Daniel V. — Thu, 21 Aug 2014 14:58:25 -0400

You could in theory combine the branches but many things would be lost in translation. The entire excerise of consolidation would cost TRILLIONS of dollars. Just getting new name tapes alone for every current Marine would cost $600k. Imagine the cost painting USA on every piece of equipment.
Now we could simply phased out the Marine Corps. You would have to retrain several commands to fill the roles that the Marine Corps plays. Creating a single MAGTF would shoot up into the Millions quickly (there are currently 16 or so including reserves which include MEFs MEBs and MEUs) Not to mention retraining a whole new group to fill in for MARSOC, MSG, MCSF Co. and Amphibious Assualt. So on paper it would look good but in practice it would be hell and creating entire training commands and setting back years of passed on knowledge from our Pacific Campaign in WWII alone would cost us dearly. The question as whole is monetarily out of the question and would be a detriment to our National Security as whole.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Aug 21 at 2014 3:08 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Thu, 21 Aug 2014 15:08:51 -0400

Silly. Costly. Ineffectual. Combining the Army and the Marines probably would have as much success as developing a joint forces fighter jet. A one size all for every mission is the dream of bureaucrats and politicians who are more focused on political goals than military ones.

Response by TSgt Alan Richard "Rick" Thomas made Aug 21 at 2014 3:48 PM

TSgt Alan Richard "Rick" Thomas — Thu, 21 Aug 2014 15:48:27 -0400

The branches each have unique rolls they fill and should be left as they are.

Response by PFC Damon Graham made Aug 21 at 2014 3:48 PM

PFC Damon Graham — Thu, 21 Aug 2014 15:48:18 -0400

No! no! If you want to talk about consolidation it should be the Army and Air Force. Teeth to Tail ratio alone should tell you the Air Force should go back to a Corp. If your job means you are in a cockpit or air crew that leaves the ground on a regular basis you belong in the Air Corp. Everything else should belong to the Army. Air Force should give up space to the Navy. If or when we can get from Earth to the edge of the solar system in a day the Air (Space) Force and have it back. Sorry I got off track I'm an Army vet and the Marine do a great job at what they do. The only time the Army should get involved is when the number of Marines you have is not enough, until that point the Marines got it all the way.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 21 at 2014 5:12 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 21 Aug 2014 17:12:33 -0400

Honestly, it's a lofty idea, but I'd lump all the services together. One big happy DOD family. One rank structure, one chief of staff, one secretary, less money spent, and infinite duty stations. Traditions aside, of course.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 21 at 2014 6:30 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 21 Aug 2014 18:30:37 -0400

Absolutely not. Traditions play an important part in each of our respective branches and our missions are distinct. Although many comaprisons can be drawn between the two branches, both should remain independent of the other.

Response by LCpl Thomas Phillips made Aug 21 at 2014 6:38 PM

LCpl Thomas Phillips — Thu, 21 Aug 2014 18:38:13 -0400

I read where someone in the comments said this and it goes directly with my thinking. The Marines wouldn't be able to maintain our quality and the Army couldn't maintain it's quantity if we combined forces.

Response by MAJ Michael Moffeit made Aug 21 at 2014 7:27 PM

MAJ Michael Moffeit — Thu, 21 Aug 2014 19:27:27 -0400

No. Each branch has their own mission and their own SOPs and methods of conducting their day-to-day operations. The Marine Corps, for example, has a singular method of writing orders, carrying out duties, SOPs, etc. On the other hand, the Army, while guided by it's own TTPs/SOPs, enables commanders at lower levels to exercise their own discretion in how they conduct business. A likely primary cause of this is the sheer size of the Army, any regulation and singular method of doing ANYTHING is going to have to be filtered through numerous levels of command and the end-result is a little, if not very much, watered down. There are many instances where we, as a military, will need a smaller, more agile and responsive force (i.e. the Marine Corps [although there are similar Army units that fit that bill as well]) and there will also be times where a massive amount of manpower and equipment is needed (i.e. the Army). This multi-faceted ability far outweighs any potential savings in cost (in my opinion)

Response by Cpl Michael Strickler made Aug 21 at 2014 9:08 PM

Cpl Michael Strickler — Thu, 21 Aug 2014 21:08:30 -0400

I am unsure if this has been mentioned PO1 Private RallyPoint Member, but consider if that were to happen the Navy would lose its men's department! haha

not to mention all the 'expired' tattoos

Response by MSG Jeff Anderson made Aug 21 at 2014 9:49 PM

MSG Jeff Anderson — Thu, 21 Aug 2014 21:49:48 -0400

Would it be prudent to look at consolidating the Marine Corps into the Army, possibly. The issue of course is to determine the extent of consolidation. Consolidation would not necessarily lead to an identity crisis for the Marines. Consolidating the ground forces could be beneficial and help to reduce some redundancy between the Army and Marines. A few years ago there was much discussion in regards to that topic as leaders wanted to ensure there was little redundancy between the two services. The Marine Corps is consolidated into the Department of the Navy now so moving them into the Army would not be any different. They each need to keep their own traditions and training but there would be benefits to consolidation. One, the Army can continue to develop the doctrine to effectively support logistically moving a Marine Expeditionary Force over long distances similar to what happened during OIF. We could work more closely in integrating intelligence and fires and the Army could benefit from how the Marines use Air/Ground teams. There could be consolidation of the use of national training facilities where the Marines use NTC instead of 29 Palms. Keeping the Marine Expeditionary Force is a must. A good benefit that could be explored is to have the 3rd Marine Division be created as the first joint division were the Army airborne brigade in Alaska could instead come under the 3rd Marine Division. This could then allow the Army to instead potentially shift a division back to Europe which we should have never left as completely as we did to begin with. Traditions of course need to be honored and in no way do I think anyone wants to see Marine traditions diminished. The Marine Corps should also keep their own training facilities, especially boot camp though we need to continue doing consolidated training at the major centers of excellence. Even if the Marine were consolidated into the Army I do not see a reduced relationship with the Navy.

Response by PV2 Charles Lagois made Aug 21 at 2014 10:12 PM

PV2 Charles Lagois — Thu, 21 Aug 2014 22:12:57 -0400

Response by Cpl Peter Martuneac made Aug 21 at 2014 10:18 PM

Cpl Peter Martuneac — Thu, 21 Aug 2014 22:18:37 -0400

The only reason Marines seem redundant right now is because, for the past 13 years, we've been largely conducting operations that we are not meant to do. We've adapted and overcome many challenges, but Marines are not an occupying force. We're shocktroopers, specially trained to seize a toe hold in enemy territory, usually via amphibious assault, and hold it until the Army can come in with their vastly superior numbers and crush the enemy. That is what we are trained to do and why we have the title Marine. If we found ourselves in a conventional war here soon, you'd once again see Marines going back to their roots and earning our keep in the United States Military.

Response by Sgt Tralfaz Watson made Aug 21 at 2014 11:20 PM

Sgt Tralfaz Watson — Thu, 21 Aug 2014 23:20:37 -0400

Well if that were to happen all the soldiers would have to go to Marine recruit training and earn the title Marine... unless they just phased out the Army and sent all new recruits to the Corps..

Response by PFC Shane Nichols made Aug 22 at 2014 12:46 AM

PFC Shane Nichols — Fri, 22 Aug 2014 00:46:06 -0400

No offense to anone but Yall are a bunch of idiots all branches are all part of the same thing DOD we all have a job to do and we do it and the reason the army and marines have the most casualties is because we are ground troops were most of the fighting is done.

Response by Sgt Shane Swiggart made Aug 22 at 2014 1:14 AM

Sgt Shane Swiggart — Fri, 22 Aug 2014 01:14:38 -0400

The services are similar on the surface, but the fundamental roles that each play in combat are very different. The Army is our main body of the military. They advance, attack the enemy, and control the area after. While the USMC, when utilized as a land force, are shock troops. We attack the enemy in such an aggressive manner, that those we do not kill will have lost they will to fight us again. We advance, and then advance again. Each service is vital to our overall battle plan. The USMC is also our primary amphibious force that we use to establish beachheads to help deliver other elements to battle. The USMC cant do what the Army can, but neither can the Army to what Marines can.

Response by Cpl Matthew Wall made Aug 22 at 2014 10:42 AM

Cpl Matthew Wall — Fri, 22 Aug 2014 10:42:03 -0400

I can think of a few reasons for not joining them together. Marines and Army do separate things in my opinion. From my time in Iraq I saw that Marines were the spearhead and took towns and cities and then the Army came in to occupy. Then if/when the Army lost the location the Marines were the ones that had to go back and secure the town/city.

Training is completely different. Marines focus on rifle skills and swimming. Army focuses on I don't know what. Marines are a smaller force and is the Countries 911. We can be anywhere in less than 24 hrs. We protect embassies, hell we protect the POTUS. Army is a very large branch that is probably too big for itself. It has become like a corporation almost.

Now, I could say that the Air Force has no real defined role as well. You could essentially hand out their aircraft to the other branches.

Marines already have their own flight squadron and conduct helo and fighter jet ops. Army only has helos that I know of. In Iraq we did not use the Air Force for anything except for a JDAM and that rarely worked as it was. All other air support came from the Marines. Now Army has to rely on the Air Force for their flight ops. Marines don't.

That is just my 2 cents, but ya.

Response by SPC Michael Turner made Aug 22 at 2014 12:06 PM

SPC Michael Turner — Fri, 22 Aug 2014 12:06:11 -0400

All the services need to go back to their original missions. There are to many redundencies in the services.

Response by PO1 Tim Bourgault made Aug 22 at 2014 12:11 PM

PO1 Tim Bourgault — Fri, 22 Aug 2014 12:11:08 -0400

I think the missions and purpose of each Group is totally different, combining them is similar to trying to make one aircraft do all missions, it can get the job done but not as effectively as ones that are built mission specific. I think a combining of them would not work.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Aug 22 at 2014 1:27 PM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Fri, 22 Aug 2014 13:27:30 -0400

Nah, the Army and the Air Force tried it during WWII and got a divorce soon after...

Response by LtCol Dave Jonas made Aug 22 at 2014 1:58 PM

LtCol Dave Jonas — Fri, 22 Aug 2014 13:58:42 -0400

No. They should not consolidate. They have different roles and missions. The Marines are a rapid response force. We can get in quickly, but don't have the staying power of the Army. The Army is slower to arrive, but can stay much longer. The Marines are also an amphibious force and are getting back to their roots now. Just because the Army and Marines seemed to be used interchangeably in Afghanistan and Iraq does not mean that they should merge. It is a bad idea.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 22 at 2014 8:21 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 22 Aug 2014 20:21:26 -0400

No, no, no, no. The Marines have a very distinct mission and purpose. If anything perhaps role the Air Force back up into the Army.

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 22 at 2014 9:05 PM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 22 Aug 2014 21:05:42 -0400

MA1, I can certainly see where you're coming from. But ask yourself, should the Air Force take over the job of naval aviation? We just drive the ships and the fly the planes? Should we remove all the collective medical corps across the branches and make the uniformed Public Health Service shoulder all the healthcare across the branches? It might be cheaper to do all these things, but you miss out on diversity and perspective by doing that. Look at the healthy rivalry between the 'Corps and the Army. Both have very different skill sets, and though they ultimately do the same job, they usually do it differently. Also, I don't think the determination could be made by some one who wasn't a part of the Army, or Corps, or both at some point.
Personally i think the Marine Corps needs to refocus its objective to what it was 20 years or more ago, and throughout history, an amphibious quick reaction force. The Marines, in their rivalry, have started to try to do the Army's job. Which leads to a lot of redundancy. But i think all the services should face a little post-war refocusing. Especially if they start cutting numbers due to draw downs, etc.

Response by PO2 Chris Rogers made Aug 22 at 2014 9:27 PM

PO2 Chris Rogers — Fri, 22 Aug 2014 21:27:09 -0400

Absolutely not. Not only was I a Marine, but I'm also a military history dork. First off, the Marine Corps and Army serve two very seperate roles when it comes to warfare. The Marines are designed to be an invasion force while the Army is uniquely capable of being an occupation/rebuilding force. Secondly, if I'm not inaccurate, the Marine Corps' size is regulated in the Constitution, which every military member swore to keep...With that said... good luck getting a Marine to leave the Corps and call themselves a "soldier" so you're screwed on that numbers thing

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 22 at 2014 9:28 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 22 Aug 2014 21:28:06 -0400

No. Mainly because of mission orientation and budget. The historical role of the marine corps is to open a beach head. Secure for as long as possible, move on add the army holds the ground indefinitely. The mission of the army allows it to operate as a lone entity. Plus if you combine them the impact on the budget would be insane. Each other squabbling over who needs what more for their mission.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 22 at 2014 9:45 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 22 Aug 2014 21:45:52 -0400

No. The Army is subject to congress to deploy, engage and destroy the enemies of the United States. (you like that Creed reference? no? ok, moving on) The Marine Corps can deploy as shock troopers on the word of the PRESIDENT alone. This, in my opinion, is their greatest trait: lack of red tape to go and get things started. They do have limits on this (all of which I am likely not aware of), but it still makes the Marine Corps a necessary branch of service. If the military were to move the Corps under the Dept. of the Army from the navy that would be funny as hell though, then WE could have a turn maliciously withholding funding from them.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 22 at 2014 9:50 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 22 Aug 2014 21:50:03 -0400

No. The Marines allow the Navy to project land power, it's a specific concept that's proven to be historically sound. When we [the Army] show up we're moving in for the long haul, probably because our adversary(ies) didn't get the message when we sent in the Marines.

Response by SPC(P) Estus Hibbard made Aug 22 at 2014 9:52 PM

SPC(P) Estus Hibbard — Fri, 22 Aug 2014 21:52:54 -0400

As much as it might sound good on paper, I don't believe that it would be a good idea to merge the two branches. The Marine Corps is more geared towards amphibious operations and acting as the initial shock troops, so to speak, all while coordinating their actions with the Navy while the Army is geared more towards long-term land combat operations. Those differences aside, you would also run into the cultural conflict between the two branches. Both have their own unique customs and proud histories that each would prefer to keep intact, perhaps even more so in the case of the Corps.

Response by 1LT Nick Kidwell made Aug 22 at 2014 10:07 PM

1LT Nick Kidwell — Fri, 22 Aug 2014 22:07:47 -0400

I'd say this could only fly if every servicemember involved does a combined initial entry training that meets the rigors of both USMC Boot Camp (including the Crucible) as well as the specifications of US Army Infantry OSUT. This training scenario would also have to utilize USMC DIs and US Army Infantry DSs on a level playing field and as co-trainers.

But rolling both branches together en masse as they stand? Not on your life. The differences in specific mission, rank structure, and unit-level operations are just too different to make a USMC/Army FrankenBranch.

Response by SSG Jonathan Appling made Aug 22 at 2014 10:23 PM

SSG Jonathan Appling — Fri, 22 Aug 2014 22:23:39 -0400

Have this same statement made partially in the FB link it is attached to ( hate doing same things twice in repetition ) : I have a written change of military doctrine document that would confuse our enemies and consolidate our military into a more tight knit cohesive force . It is based on deployability status . It would possibly save money and mobilize our military faster . It would separate our military into command structure by means of type of warfare military personnel deploy in which is based on the kind of terrain they deploy to , through. Have no way of measuring the expenses it would entail.
Presently a lot of coordination gets slowed down by requests for transport by both the US Air Force and Navy. My system would consolidate 83 ranks insignia down to about 25 . There would be one dress uniform ( Marine dress uniform makes women swoon. ) Camouflage is dependent on terrain. So the combat uniform would depend on location and deployable status. There would be a change in the physical fitness uniform of all commands . All MOS specific uniforms would be the same with only a nameplate change. Unit designators may not need to be changed. Just their mission deployability status would need to be changed. Techniques of combat could be collaborated more readily by all ground forces...both Marines and Army The US Army would be changed to Homeland defense status for training and security and Marines would be anyone deployed overseas .
I could not get it out of my mind once I retired. It always bothered me to see the UNITED STATES Marines , Army , Navy, Air Force being separated and also some of the belligerence between branches . It bothered me until I wrote it down. How can we be united if we are separately distinguished apart as separate branches which depend on each other to operate?
Did I care who was guarding me as I built a fire base in a foreign nation as an engineer? No, as long as they were from the USA. Did I care who I was firing artillery support missile fire missions to protect ? No , it could have been Marines gaining enemy ground, as long as Americans were safe. Did I care who I was supporting as a Chaplain Assistant ? We all have personal needs , cares, concerns, problems in life. If you are US active military and would like a copy I can send an internet copy for free . If you require a physical copy it will have to be 'covered' for shipping and handling sake as I am a civilian now. America bless God, SSG, USARNG retired .

Response by SFC Erin Barnett made Aug 22 at 2014 10:39 PM

SFC Erin Barnett — Fri, 22 Aug 2014 22:39:38 -0400

No, but I do think we should all get back to our core strengths. The Marines should never been more than 25 miles from the water. Marine's shouldn't be in the sandbox, its not their thing, but the politics of it says they have to show their useful to keep their funding.

The Army has more boats than the Navy and more aircraft than the Air force. We cant afford the duplication any more. Why do the Marines, Navy, and Air Force all need F-22s? Why does the Army need their own cargo airplanes?

The list goes on and on.

Response by SFC Raymond Thibault made Aug 22 at 2014 10:44 PM

SFC Raymond Thibault — Fri, 22 Aug 2014 22:44:29 -0400

No, while both have many of the same military specialties there by Law there is a difference in their Missions. Being part of the Navy, Marines are stationed on board vessels that allow them to be deployed in support of Government Agencies like the State Department. Their rules of engagement do not require Congressional Approval. For the Army to be deployed it has to be a declared War, or mission accepted by the Congress. So because of each services unique mission. I say NO.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 22 at 2014 10:46 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 22 Aug 2014 22:46:10 -0400

Of course they should. Or vice versa and merge the Army with the Marine Corps. There's nothing that one does that the other can't do or learn to do and the taxpayers shouldn't be billed for the redundancy.

Response by SGT Tad Higgins made Aug 22 at 2014 11:25 PM

SGT Tad Higgins — Fri, 22 Aug 2014 23:25:40 -0400

No!!! Need I say more?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 22 at 2014 11:27 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 22 Aug 2014 23:27:27 -0400

I would hope that you aren't insisting that it is any different of level pride to earn the title of a Soldier in the United States Army. I have lived with the USMC and served with them for many years. The only ones that separate the branches and say one is better than the other are usually the young immature people. I am very proud to be a Soldier and no one will ever take that away regardless of what you were taught in boot camp.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 22 at 2014 11:34 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 22 Aug 2014 23:34:24 -0400

I've seen the argument posed that it's a matter of efficiency vs. effectiveness. I think that is a good way to look at it, but I'm not sure if we're approaching it from the correct angle by stating that an absolute merger is required. With today's insurgent threats (non-state actors) and our most likely future hybrid threats (state and non-state actors) we absolutely need a force that is multi-faceted and specialized working in concert with one another. Anyone that has served in a joint assignment should understand how well a unit can operate with individuals who specialize in the air, land, sea, and beaches. It's the very reason that the Marines were separated from the Navy and the Air Force from the Army. Perhaps a better question would be, "Should we stop asking the Marines to work outside of their original charter by having them conduct sustained combat operations?" I'm well aware of their combat effectiveness, but it truly isn't what the Corps was intended for.

Now we definitely could eliminate some redundancy by standardizing support functions. This would allow all the branches to reduce the amount of support personnel and make these personnel interchangeable within any unit in any branch of service. I would even be willing to fathom that vastly increasing joint units by forming them at even lower echelons than COCOMs would be a good way to increase both effectiveness and efficiency. Just my humble opinion and, I think, far less controversial than eliminating an entire branch of service.

Response by PFC Robert Thompson made Aug 23 at 2014 12:20 AM

PFC Robert Thompson — Sat, 23 Aug 2014 00:20:34 -0400

A very interesting question. Seeing how both branches are ground pounders and the Marines use Army post for training: Ft Sill for FA, Fort Knox for Armour or is it at Benning now, along with the Marines using Ft Benning for Air Borne. It's interesting to watch the branches although separate, work together.

Even with that said, both branches, as you were, ALL branches have their own unique skill sets, from training to executing a mission. It's because of this uniqueness, we are able to deploy what is needed where it will be the most effective.

Response by 1LT Gerald O'Hare made Aug 23 at 2014 1:06 AM

1LT Gerald O'Hare — Sat, 23 Aug 2014 01:06:32 -0400

Marines are needed as part of the Navy. The Army is much more a diverse organization with diverse capabilities. Marines by their connection to the Navy have a limited capability and mission.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 23 at 2014 2:24 AM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 23 Aug 2014 02:24:29 -0400

The Marine Corps is not a force that should be used for long term land operations. We will if we have to. Our hope and will is to become our true selves again. That is a force prepared to lay the groundwork for whatever follows. It's a mindset, a culture, a core principle all Marines share. We accept and pride ourselves as the force that asks for little but delivers. We are not the Army, not should we be. I refuse your patches.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 23 at 2014 10:40 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 23 Aug 2014 10:40:27 -0400

While your question has a point in that both are land oriented combat forces look at it like this, that is like saying the air force and navy should join since they both have planes. Or that the navy and coast guard should consolidate on the basis that they are both water based branches. Every branch has their purpose and also the or own history and pride from their branch. I have a frIinds either in or with the exception of the Navy still in. In my graduating class we had myself, a National guard soldier, another national guard soldier, a army reserve soldier, one active airman, one reserve airman, and a reserve marine, all in a class of 48. I grew up with these people and yes we all give each other crap about who's better etc. But in the end we all know we have our own purpose in the military.

Response by MAJ Jim Woods made Aug 23 at 2014 1:16 PM

MAJ Jim Woods — Sat, 23 Aug 2014 13:16:56 -0400

Grunts are Grunts! Infantry is Infantry! Support is Support and I need to remind all us Grunts that we can't do without them.

Another way to put this is Army Infantry and Marine Infantry......... the same. Force Recon/Rangers the same. MARSOC/SF the same. Now can we put this to bed?

Response by Cpl Michael Goston made Aug 23 at 2014 3:11 PM

Cpl Michael Goston — Sat, 23 Aug 2014 15:11:30 -0400

You would have to change the constitution to get rid of the Marines. Its the only branch mandated. We are the tip of the spear! The Marines and the Army are very different. The Marines are the only branch in which every member is combat trained and ready.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 23 at 2014 3:19 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 23 Aug 2014 15:19:08 -0400

I have had the priviledge of experiences both services and there is a huge difference. The mission set for both while they may seem similar they are very different. The Marines primary mission set is designed more for initial and rapid conflict resolution. They have been serving in the current conflicts in a longer range operations which accredits them with the ability to modify their mission set. The Army has units that are designed with a mission set similar to the Marines however the primary mission set is designed for a longer range operations and a large force deployment. Now it says to put camaraderie aside however that is a vital aspect of operations. A larger force has a mor difficult time to maintain a greater level of comradarie which can adversely affect combat operations. I think it would be a huge mistake to join the forces. It would be like telling the Army Special Forces Group that they will be joined with the generak population of the Army. This would degrade the the morale and comradarie of the Special Forces which in turn dirrectly affects their operational proficiency.
Robert E Griffin
SSG(ret), USA
Served HM3 USN, 8404 before they established FMC.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 23 at 2014 3:46 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 23 Aug 2014 15:46:33 -0400

Certainly there are Army units that have the very similar training in amphibious assault, combat diving/underwater combat operations, etc. The Marines, as a Department within the Navy, have a proud individual history and tradition but if we are seeking to cut costs it makes sense to either consolidate the Army into the Marines or vice versa. If the Government really needs to save money as badly as they say this it would make sense to combine the Army and Marines.

Most of my relatives are Navy?Marines and they are certainly not happy hearing me say this but it makes sense.

Response by Sgt Andrew Pouliot made Aug 23 at 2014 4:02 PM

Sgt Andrew Pouliot — Sat, 23 Aug 2014 16:02:35 -0400

Nah

Response by Sgt Alex Clarke made Aug 23 at 2014 4:50 PM

Sgt Alex Clarke — Sat, 23 Aug 2014 16:50:25 -0400

Is this a real question?

Response by Sgt Alex Clarke made Aug 23 at 2014 5:01 PM

Sgt Alex Clarke — Sat, 23 Aug 2014 17:01:32 -0400

Read the book titled, "First to Fight" by Victor H. Krulak and you will be shown why the Corps will never be merged with any other service, EVER. If anything, the Corps will outlast any other United States Military Service and, perhaps even the country itself.

Does the Marine Corps do anything the other services can't do?

Short answer: NO.

Oh sure, Marines will tell you that they are tailored toward rapid deployment and conflict resolution or amphibious assault, but the truth is, the Marine Corps exists for only ONE reason: Money.

The Marine Corps solidified its position long ago, when it was created as a Navy Military Police force (entirely seperate from the Navy for the express purpose of being able to police Naval personnel without reporting to any of them, regardless of rank structure), by adapting to new situations faster than the government required and in a less expensive way than any other service. That characteristic is the reason the Corps is still around. There have been, and continue to be, numerous occasions where people try to show that the Marine Corps need not exist because they do nothing which is unique.

The problem is that every time a naysayer spouts off at the mouth about the Corps, they are proven wrong by the Marine Corps budget. No other service can say they can do everything the Corps does at the price the Corps charges for its services.

Simply put: we do it cheaper and more effectively than anybody else. Except the Navy, we love their ships.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 23 at 2014 5:18 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 23 Aug 2014 17:18:07 -0400

That's like asking if the air force and navy should be consolidated because both fly combat sorties. That being said it might not be a bad idea to get rid of the Army completely and beef up the Corps.

Response by SPC Charles Brown made Aug 23 at 2014 7:46 PM

SPC Charles Brown — Sat, 23 Aug 2014 19:46:08 -0400

Just to stir the pot a little I have a couple of questions. Which banner would both services be under? Army or Navy or perhaps a new one?

Response by SPC Dale St. Pierre made Aug 23 at 2014 7:57 PM

SPC Dale St. Pierre — Sat, 23 Aug 2014 19:57:57 -0400

the army needs to adopt a lot of how the marines work and operate for discipline and how you move up in rank,if a promotion is automatic why work to get it ? we should also adopt the way you advance in promotion ,like a job skills test . When it comes to advancing to a leadership position how well you do in pt, or school has no bearing on how you perform this task,also promotion boards are udder crap ,some are how well you can remember scores or team members from a football or baseball team? but I digress the over all is no ,we need the specialization each branch brings in. Also the way things are run there would be no checks or balance for misspending of funds.

Response by 1st Lt Paul Robertson made Aug 23 at 2014 9:10 PM

1st Lt Paul Robertson — Sat, 23 Aug 2014 21:10:42 -0400

Marine Corps is the World's largest special forces. Let's keep 'em.

Response by SGT Philip Popa made Aug 23 at 2014 10:46 PM

SGT Philip Popa — Sat, 23 Aug 2014 22:46:32 -0400

I don't think that either branches could deal with the other. It is too different worlds and the clash would create more damage than it would do good.

Response by SFC Keith Kingsley made Aug 23 at 2014 11:12 PM

SFC Keith Kingsley — Sat, 23 Aug 2014 23:12:42 -0400

The U S Army is the biggest wast of money then any other branch. Why should we have three time more equipment than we use.. The Army has excess equipment stashed all around the world. Look at Iraq Billions of equipment left there so out enemies can now use it against us.

Response by LCpl Darrell J. Farley Jr. made Aug 23 at 2014 11:54 PM

LCpl Darrell J. Farley Jr. — Sat, 23 Aug 2014 23:54:26 -0400

The consolidation issue has been raised before. and shot down. The Army has a different mission and make up than the Marines Corps.While the Army is great for moving slowly when they are setting up an occupation force. While Marines move quickly from ship to shore with the verticle envelopement both different tactics each branch having specializedntactics.

Response by PO1 Paul Willett made Aug 24 at 2014 12:12 PM

PO1 Paul Willett — Sun, 24 Aug 2014 12:12:50 -0400

I have always observed the Military from a Football Team perspective, the Marine Corp as our Offensive Team and the Army as Defense! Without the Marine Corp our Casualties will be much higher. We must not forget the creation of these force in order to understand their roles.The teams are both needed and when used effectively, results remain Outstanding ! ~~ AM1

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 24 at 2014 2:27 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 24 Aug 2014 14:27:00 -0400

No, they should not combine. The Marine Corps has the unique ability and training, even their unit organization, to support beach head operations and to maintain a constant strike force capability while out at sea for 365 days a year. The Army has some capabilities which are similar, but better suited for long operations because of logistical support and maintenance assets. If you were to force Marines to operate in a static position for months on end, for example in OIF, you must pair them together with logistical support trains from other services such as the Army. The organization of the Marine corps in a beach head operation is very similar to the idea of a brigade combat team that the Army uses, however it can be deployed on a much smaller scale. Regardless, it has limitations as far as sustainment goes. I think if you combine the forces you lose some of the specialization that goes with them. Here's another intersting though, the Marine Corps acquisitions budget is much smaller than the army. They often wait as a result to procure new equipment until after they see the Army test whatever equipment. An example, the rifling on the 120mm mortars. Essentially it's the same weapon as the Army's, however the rifiling increases accuracy and range. The Marine corps watched the Army buy the smooth bore version, and then requisitioned the Mortar system with improvements made. That's something the Marine corps brings to the fight. I respect the hell out of them, and love working together with them down range, but I think they should remain separate.

Response by A1C Stanley Kolakowski made Aug 24 at 2014 6:28 PM

A1C Stanley Kolakowski — Sun, 24 Aug 2014 18:28:53 -0400

Objectively, maybe. I could see a situation where the Marine Corps is converted to being a "Special Forces" type thing for the Army instead of being the "Ground branch" of the Navy.
However, do you think that:

1. Aren't the Marines MP division effectively the police for the Navy?
2. How's CAP going to work, Navy has rights to fly fixed wing aircraft over land within X miles of shore, while Army is prohibited from having fixed wing aircraft.
3. How would having Large Army Divisions being effectively "permanently" under the command of the Navy work?
4. How would the whole administration thing work? I mean, right now, a lot of the Marines paperwork is pushed by Navy Administrators, how different would it be if the Army suddenly had to push that amount of paperwork? Especially if the Army had to install administrative sub-divisions on Naval bases with significant Marine presence...

And don't the Army and Marines share a significant portion of their ground based weaponry already (the other bit of logistics that needs to be considered for Army/Marine integration) and continuing this pattern be as efficient as before.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 24 at 2014 6:50 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 24 Aug 2014 18:50:02 -0400

Having served in both served in both services there are minor differences in them that would make merging a pain in the rear. Standard of training is probably the biggest, responsibility is second, and attitude is third. I have met many senior NCO's in the army that have told me the best soldiers theyve had were all former marines, with exception of FT. Henning army basic is a joke (a senior drill sergeant once told me he was a glorified babysitter at a summer camp). Also everywhere iv been in the army has a duty day of 0630-0800 pt 0900- 1700 work with lunch at 1130-1300. The marines are pt is when your told (had it at 0300 once ) work started a half hour after or and ended when your tasks for the day are done(could be 1100 could be 2300) and lunch was when you have five minutes to eat. Also all marines carry themselves higher and straighter then most soldiers ( with the exception of SOCOM soldiers and infantry). I was also told recently that the army is not used to the level of work I do on a daily basis or the stress I operate under due to workload, timelines, and lack of manpower, it is one tenth of what I handled in the corps. The only way the marines would survive as part of the army is if they were regarded as and grouped with the specialty area, I.e. ranger, special forces, delta

Response by A1C Stanley Kolakowski made Aug 24 at 2014 9:10 PM

A1C Stanley Kolakowski — Sun, 24 Aug 2014 21:10:44 -0400

Having the Marines as an Special Ops Force like Delta Force, Rangers, etc., could work. However, there are a few other questions I have to wonder if they've been considered:

1. Marines provide their own CAP and possibly Recon, from a carrier. Via the Navy's "ability" to fly fixed wing aircraft with X miles of a shore. Since "Army" is not allowed to fly fixed wing aircraft at all, how would the Army-Marines receive their CAP? Air Force (like regular Army gets)? Be interesting when the fight's on a hostile shore, no nearby air bases, and the AF can't land on carriers. Navy? Would the Navy pilot(s) come from the Corps before or after the transfer, and would they be dedicated to the CAP role or would they be mixed role?

2. How much redundancy is being eliminated in such a shift, anyway? Whatever Marine paperwork that has been shunted to regular Navy Administrators has to be picked up by Marines or Army. And would such a shift actually introduce more redundancy, since most "Marine" Bases (Co-located on many Naval bases) would then need an Army Administration unit?

3. Same with the ranks. Are we really going to see the number of Generals and other flag officers decrease? In a way, this could be detrimental to the Corps, as it would suddenly be possible to take a "regular" Army Colonel or General and promote / rotate into the commands - while right now it's been lifelong Marines only, due to the difficulties of cross-promoting a Commander to Colonel, for example...

4. How would shipboard logistics work? As of right now, the Marines are cared for by the Navy - do they get to charge the Army all of a sudden? Does Army send supplies? Mixed billets? On this note, who charges who for what, and how many extra accountants are necessary to pull this off? (at greater cost than the current system of Naval Administration handling all the bills and budgets)

5. Aren't there already significant amounts of "tech sloshing" around? Marine M16, XM8, SAW, M1 Abrams, etc. are all Army designs, Marine CAP tends to use Naval F18s, etc. Outside of maybe some medium-sized pieces (artillery) and the actual amphibious craft, the Marines don't really do much R&D. Can't use this as too much justification for a transfer from Navy to Army...

Response by Cpl Ray Fernandez made Aug 25 at 2014 12:48 AM

Cpl Ray Fernandez — Mon, 25 Aug 2014 00:48:17 -0400

I don't think it would be a good idea, the missions are different and although we appear to have similar roles on the surface, we have different missions. First we're part of the Navy because our mission is to be expeditionary. We are at sea to provide a quick response as the President may direct. Need an embassy evacuated, where's the nearest MEU SOC. We train everyone at basic training to the same standard then we separate each Marine to their MOS school after receiving a common combat training that allows us to function in a combat role if necessary.

The Army is designed for its role. It is able to move large forces to fight a massive force or to hold terrain. The problem would likely lie in what happens if you consolidated the Marine Corps and the Army. The training and costs associated with merging would likely make it impractical. Army units have operated with their gear off of ships and the problem that was discovered was that much of the equipment suffered because the equipment was not designed for prolonged exposure to maritime environment. So then we get back to another issue, if the Marine Corps and the Army consolidated would we become one force, or would it just be an administrative change where the Marine Corps goes from Dept of the Navy, to the Dept of the Army? If that's the case it would be pointless as it would make the Army's budget which is already hurting, even worse as it would be stretched even further when it wouldn't need to be.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 25 at 2014 3:01 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 25 Aug 2014 03:01:41 -0400

The army has been around longer than the Corp. I know marines and they would not be happy. Yes each basic training or boot camp is different for each branch to be able to train the individual a certain way based of the branch's mission. If they all merge then they all merge but if something goes down to where you need that certain task completed then latest it is one branch doing it not multiple branch's we all work to complete the mission. Air Force came from the army air corp. Marines have the anchor because they work closely with navy but all these branch's came from one branch at one time the army all training is based off one thing the blue book the training from the revolutionary war. Look at the history not one branch is better than the other I stand behind merging of the branch's all to be one branch

Response by MAJ Sheldon Smith made Aug 25 at 2014 6:16 AM

MAJ Sheldon Smith — Mon, 25 Aug 2014 06:16:19 -0400

The USAF should come back home to the Army.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 25 at 2014 6:55 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 25 Aug 2014 06:55:47 -0400

Absolutely! But why stop there? I say combine everyone Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard. Make one combined U.S. Military or Armed Forces, start all over. Leave the history and traditions of each branch in a museum someplace and create a new legacy. Just imagine the savings in uniforms alone.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 25 at 2014 9:14 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 25 Aug 2014 09:14:44 -0400

No. The USMC is the only Military component that the President can deploy at a moment's notice without input from Congress. That authority and vital flexibility in crisis situations will be lost.

Response by Cpl Matthew Wall made Aug 25 at 2014 1:33 PM

Cpl Matthew Wall — Mon, 25 Aug 2014 13:33:17 -0400

Realistically though, I believe that the Marines could absorb the Army and become bigger. However, a lot of Army soldiers would be separated once they came into the Corps. Also, you might have to open up another MCRD just to get all of the Army through. Might have to do it in phases though as Boot Camp is 13 weeks. I'm all for it. Come on over Army join the dark side.

While we are at it. Once the Army came over the Marines then we could consolidate the Coast Guard and the Navy. Then we would just take the Air Force and consolidate them with the Marine Corps and Navy.

There you go folks a blue print for success. You have a large ground force and you have your naval force. It is perfect.

Response by SPC Stephen Bobchin made Aug 25 at 2014 4:20 PM

SPC Stephen Bobchin — Mon, 25 Aug 2014 16:20:45 -0400

No, my objective reason? Marines and the Army have completely different operational and organizational strengths and weaknesses. While the Army can bring a larger budget, more manpower, and more equipment to bear, they also have to deal with the logistical and operational bloat that comes with it. The Marine Corps on the other hand, are a more nimble force, capable of being mobilized and deployed more rapidly, which in turn increases turnaround speed on decision making and doctrinal changes.

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 25 at 2014 10:55 PM

GySgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 25 Aug 2014 22:55:30 -0400

Yuck

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 26 at 2014 1:25 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 26 Aug 2014 01:25:32 -0400

No... These are two different missions. one soldier, one warrior.. Should we consolidate SEALS, Rangers and Green Berets? No.

Response by LCpl William Neira made Aug 26 at 2014 3:23 AM

LCpl William Neira — Tue, 26 Aug 2014 03:23:30 -0400

They both are rich in tradition. And both serve a purpose for this great nation of ours.
Being a Marine who reenlisted into the Army I have seen both sides of the spectrum.
The way I see it IF the two branches combined(IF). The Marine Corps (and it would still be known as such) would basically replace the Rangers. Any select individuals (Rangers that is)wishing to join our beloved Corps would have to go through 3 months of training. Then and only then you would be allowed into the Corps.
Furthermore, the other offspring..Special Forces, Delta and Recon..Those would be in a company all of their own. Split however they want...Their elite...I'm not going to tell them what to do.
In conclusion...IF(God help me) IF they combined given the scenario I just presented. Both branches could still carry on with their heritage and honor of history

Response by LCpl William Neira made Aug 26 at 2014 3:24 AM

LCpl William Neira — Tue, 26 Aug 2014 03:24:11 -0400

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 27 at 2014 11:30 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 27 Aug 2014 11:30:46 -0400

No, having served for 8 years in the Marine Corps, and now in the Army, it is easy to see the difference in missions and capabilities. However, being combat arms in the Marines, and Logistics in the Army, my view could be skewed. Without researching one or both branches, one cannot make the determination that each does the exact same thing. Each branch is specialized in its own accord, and is needed for America to be as awesome as it is.

Response by WO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 29 at 2014 1:57 PM

WO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 29 Aug 2014 13:57:43 -0400

Why not just absorb the marines as our infantry force?

Response by MSG Jeff Anderson made Aug 30 at 2014 11:41 AM

MSG Jeff Anderson — Sat, 30 Aug 2014 11:41:50 -0400

Not to keep adding more fuel to the fire but there continue to be references to Marine superior fighting capability but besides the Army conducting more and larger amphibious assaults during WWII the Army also sustained the heaviest banzai attack during WWII on Saipan after the Marines landed.

The Army's 27th Infantry Division bore the brunt of Japan's largest mass suicide attack of WWII, launched before dawn on July 7, 1944, on the island of Saipan. The division's 105th Regiment saw more than 400 killed and 500 wounded during the attack by more than 3,000 Japanese soldiers and sailors. Heroically that unit survived and repulsed the assault despite the heavy losses.

The 27th was a former New York National Guard unit. It landed on Saipan after the U.S. Marines made the initial beach assault on June 15, 1944.

Food for thought.

Response by MSG Jeff Anderson made Aug 30 at 2014 11:50 AM

MSG Jeff Anderson — Sat, 30 Aug 2014 11:50:28 -0400

There have been many who have commented on discipline differences between the Army and Marines but that has not always been the case and will not be in the future.

I grew up in the Army of the 80s and 90s when discipline was much more different. Those days you didn't get caught with your hands in your pockets, walking on the CSMs grass or smoking outside a non-designated smoking area. You suffered the consequences if you did. That started changing after 9-11 as the Army ranks needed to swell. When I retired in 2008 there had been significant differences from when I joined til then which did result in reduced standards.

Now that the Army is downsizing there is a renewed emphasis to bring back those same standards. This will take time but the Army needs discipline to succeed.

The Army and Marines will never have the same level of standards given you have a organization of 400,000+ vs an organization of 170,000+ but if you go to Army units like the 82nd, 101st, 25ID or most combat arms battalions there are not that much in difference.

Response by SGT Antonio G. made Aug 30 at 2014 1:34 PM

SGT Antonio G. — Sat, 30 Aug 2014 13:34:30 -0400

It's been very interesting reading all the comments here. All the back and forth is fairly entertaining when you consider that every branch is run by the same government. It is like brothers and sisters fighting over who the parents love more. The fact is that we all serve a purpose. Every branch has their best and brightest and by the same token each has their can't get rights. If four combat soldiers who fell in battle were buried side by side would you say that any one gave more than the others or that they each gave their all? We all ball and buster about how much more we have to do or put up with more than the next person, but as soon as you start saying you are better than someone else (or any entity) you just feed that pride train till it derails. No branch is "better" than the others - they all serve a unique purpose that is apparently needful or it would not exist.

Response by SGT R.E. Vaughn made Aug 30 at 2014 4:56 PM

SGT R.E. Vaughn — Sat, 30 Aug 2014 16:56:52 -0400

One of my best friends, a retired Marine, pointed out a very basic premise of distinction between the Army and the Marine Corps . . . "The Marine Corps is NOT an Army. It is a corps--small, elite, fierce, and tightly focused as a micro-elemental shock force, designed to go in and fight a war in a manner and time that would be not pragmatic, but cumbersome and burdensome for a larger macro-elemental , such as an Army." In other words, the Marines have traditionally AND without fail, paved the way for the follow-up forces that come later. It's their distinction, one earned by their credo, valor, and sometimes, the loss of their lives. I served in the Army. I wouldn't want that distinction no more than I would want to take that away from the Marine Corps. Status quo is fine as is. Next thing you know, they'll be wanting to take away their Semper Fi motto.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 30 at 2014 8:56 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 30 Aug 2014 20:56:30 -0400

Haha PO1 Private RallyPoint Member ... the one guy in the navy who would love to see this happen. Then we'll be at each other's throats riding second class on your boat (j/k). A good question though that I have no answer to. I think the merger would take many years and just wonder how PT would work out?

Response by SSG Jonathan Appling made Aug 31 at 2014 7:02 PM

SSG Jonathan Appling — Sun, 31 Aug 2014 19:02:52 -0400

Yes; A lot of traditional values would still remain. Those are what hold us to our oaths to perform life threatening duty regardless which branch of service we perform.
A consolidation, if performed, would be done mainly to save money in the long term ( -$17 T ) The chain of command/concern could have a consolidation of rank insignia from 83 different insignia of 4 branches down to about 25 in a new consolidated DOD system. How?
A commander is a commander. A lieutenant is an officer. An NCO has been there and done that .NCO's lead men in their equipment to accomplish the mission . Any personnel are all involved in following orders to do their MOS in the highest proficiency they can be proud of doing . The only equipment change would be from one location to another . People are still responsible for their type of function they perform.
The biggest change in a new DOD could be a deployability status of the individual military service member. A Marine could be anyone on assignment overseas from the USA . While the Army is a total conglomerate of all land operations CONUS .I do not know much about naval operations , guess that a port is a type of naval base ? There would not need to be a change in its leadership .
Recruits could enter the military through the Basic Training/BT service land phase, aerial support phase , naval operations , logistical support phase. Once assigned to go overseas for combat or duty assignment, the Marine Qualification Course could be used.
The Naval forces mission and capabilities would remain intact except the only change would be that the Air Force and Navy would need to be cross trained in port and sea operations to work together to accomplish a sea lift successfully. ( Presently the Navy is in charge when it comes to sea lift ops because they are both the reception and release of aerial support )
[ PS : original thread statement ] The Air Force mission does not need to change , except that all military bases would need some type of airfield & helicopter landing capability. So all your aerial assets would go to the Air Force . This would include any and all present Army pilots of aircraft . Cavalry would become cross trained Airmen into airfield or port security as a deployed Marine . Think grandly, your present pilots would not need to PCS. Just assume a different command structure . Different unit name plate.
We are already combining teams and assigning people across the spectrum to fill combat assignments in needed locations according to their MOS and pay grade.Why? Because the draw down affects everything. Realistically , we do not have the funds to continue operating like we do presently. Please do not take offense to this.
I understand the Air Force and Naval structures would not need to change individual functions. Their duties are inherent to their mission , to support and transport USA assets to location , providing combat service and fire support.
All your MOS duties are specific to that role to accomplish the DOD mission. So MOS specific uniforms and equipment would not need to change, except for camouflage according to the location of deployment.
By combining into one force , multi-faceted such as a diamond, with the prowess we have acquired prestegiously over our history as a nation, we cannot allow which uniform we wear determine how proud we are to serve our nation. All that should be required is the willingness to perform in an honorable manner together in a uniform.
I did have at one point a full Word document written by me to outline the USA DOD consolidation in to 3 combat commands and 1 HQ / support command structure . My research showed me that I could consolidate the entire rank structure from 83 ranks of all 4 service branches down to 25 ranks , dependent on enlisted, NCO , officer , commander status of the individual in a 4 command group structure of organization. The various commands would be MOS related to sea , air , land combat , HQ / support as well as deployability status of whether a personnel is used in expeditionary or occupation and seizure of a TOO. Everything would be deployed according to METL according to mission assignment as directed by the POTUS and JCS . Yes , All the services could be unified by wearing one dress uniform of both genders require specificity, all the MOS uniforms would be able to stay unchanged. There would be 1 pt uniform, 1 combat uniform and 1 garrison uniform issued according to deployability status. And a Marine would be the ones honored to go into combat 1st to bring in the rest of the army to support the mission. Anyone overseas would wear the MEU and garrison service personnel would wear the ACU . I will be needing to rewrite this word document and save a copy offline this time. It is possible to do . Everything in balance, proper timing and in order .

Response by SGT William Rasmussen made Sep 1 at 2014 2:38 PM

SGT William Rasmussen — Mon, 01 Sep 2014 14:38:17 -0400

Hi all-well sine I am the one person so far that has served with the Army-3 deployements, Navy-6 west pac with Marines and SeaBees, and Marines -14th and 214 Marines. I see some merit of the question. So they want to put Army on ships-good luck on that-its hard enough being at sea-but having a bunch of undisiplined -yes army- troops at sea. Just asking for trouble. This is a matter of honor among marines-and the Army has none.
Each service has its own job-so we need to get a handle how to deploy them-Army goes in and stays in for years and years-you know-pseudo nation building. Marines goes in with small force to take an objective-and should be used when its a problem that needs to go away.
There needs to be consolidation-yes, maybe put army SF in the Marines, concentrate the army to long term -nation building-we really suck at that-so we need a specialized force that can do that-aka-Army. they are the only orginazation big enough to handle that job.
As far as aviation-Roll the army aviation to Navy-AF or Marines-most expense isnt the buying the machines-its the training and maintenance of the birds, so consolidating and standardizing may help

But thats just my opinion after 27 years. but I think everone needs to roll into the Coast Guard

Response by Cpl Dennis F. made Sep 1 at 2014 6:57 PM

Cpl Dennis F. — Mon, 01 Sep 2014 18:57:54 -0400

No, here is something to consider. I'm sorry that I can't pull up a link or source for this. I read it quite some time ago and also used it in one of my own articles. I have read a multitude of reports and statistics on the Vietnam war just to make more sense of it myself. There were many lessons to be learned from our time there.

In an attempt to determine what had gone wrong in Vietnam, a group of military bean counters, did what they do and crunched their numbers, files and data and came up with the following:

"After about 1969-70 all line units started to degrade in performance, morale and effectiveness (probably due to the lack of support at home) interracial, discipline and drug problems started to escalate." They did not paint a very good picture of the 'in country' military after 1970, but they went on to say,....."In all but Marine and Special forces units who upheld their professionalism through out the prosecution of the war."

Granted, todays civilian/military relations are much different than they were then, but what can happen once can happen again. Apparently there is a non quantifiable difference in the Regular Army and the Marine Corps that does affect their performance. This is certainly something to be considered in any thoughts of merging the two.

Response by SSgt Tim Ricci made Sep 2 at 2014 5:52 PM

SSgt Tim Ricci — Tue, 02 Sep 2014 17:52:58 -0400

Having proudly served in both the Army and then the Marine Corps I am going to offer my opinion in this matter. The Army could handle the Mission of the Marines; with that being said the mission should not be all Army (with lack of better words). The Fleet Marine Army mission would still be seagoing as it is currently, with a MEUSOC / MAGTAF always at sea, transported by the Navy and ready to enter into any environment it should be called upon to do. The Organization should be a command of its own with 3 active and 1 reserve Divisions as well as Specific Aviation Assets that are specialized in that area of expertise. The MOS’s should have a Specific Marine Designator and training be the same as the current Marine Training is. All other specialty MOS’s could be absorbed into the current Army layout with detachments to MEUs as needed for mission requirements. Okay now, with this layout there would still be a Marine Corps but it would be a smaller specialized entity in itself dependent on the service and logistics of the Army in particular. Just like being Airborne, Ranger or SF it would be another specialty in the Army under its own command. This analogy is just a nutshell idea!

Response by SSgt Tim Ricci made Sep 3 at 2014 12:22 PM

SSgt Tim Ricci — Wed, 03 Sep 2014 12:22:33 -0400

The raising of that flag on Suribachi means a Marine Corps for the next 500 years.
—Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal to LtGen H. M. Smith, as the Marines raised the flag on Mt. Suribachi over Iwo Jima, 23 Feb. 1945

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 3 at 2014 9:28 PM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 03 Sep 2014 21:28:26 -0400

I hate these questions…practically when people say an E-3 in one branch is equal to an O-10 in another. That comment is just plain stupid. All branches have their shitbags…all. I been to plenty of joint commands, deployed in Ar Ramadi in ’03 as an infantrymen and worked with the Marines. I worked with great Marines, and I worked with shitty ones. I have seen Marine Infantry Squad leaders make stupid decisions on the ground with me with them, and I also seen the same with the Army. All branches have their aptitude. Stop having small penis syndrome, and love each other for our differences and cultures.

Oh, and one more thing, if you are not a Marine Infantrymen…you have no place to criticize an Army’s Infantry units equivalent to yours. A POG is a POG and being in the Marines does not exempt you from that status. Just saying…

OUT

PS: I do not think the Army and Marines should consolidate.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 3 at 2014 11:01 PM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 03 Sep 2014 23:01:52 -0400

Stupid thread

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 4 at 2014 9:00 PM

GySgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 04 Sep 2014 21:00:06 -0400

Lots of hot women in the Army... I say yes.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 11 at 2014 6:28 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 11 Sep 2014 18:28:31 -0400

Seems to me that there's still a lot of emotional comparison versus objective. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Response by Sgt Matthew O'Donnell made Nov 3 at 2014 7:50 AM

Sgt Matthew O'Donnell — Mon, 03 Nov 2014 07:50:06 -0500

There's a reason why they say the few, the proud and not the majority, the average.

Response by PO2 Corrin Keeler made Nov 17 at 2014 4:04 PM

PO2 Corrin Keeler — Mon, 17 Nov 2014 16:04:59 -0500

I see two problems with that possibility. 1st, the Marine Corps is not an individual service like the Army, it is a branch of the Navy. Which brings my to my 2nd point, Marines frequently deploy on Navy ships, and I some how don't think too many Army members will be volunteering to go to sea. (if they were they would have joined the Navy or Marines)

Although they appear to have a similar purpose, they do each have different purpose & mission. To suggest combining the two would be like saying we should combine the Navy and the Air Force because they both have planes.

Each of the services, Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and the Coast Guard all have areas of overlapping skills, technology and equipment. But they each serve a purpose.

Response by Sgt Nick Nguyen made Nov 17 at 2014 4:17 PM

Sgt Nick Nguyen — Mon, 17 Nov 2014 16:17:12 -0500

This is the dumbest question I have ever ran across in my damn entire life. Hey, let's get rid of 239 years of Marine Corps traditions, and let's just merge, yes?? While we are at it, let's just shorten our basic to 8 weeks, lower the marksman quals too? Rah? I think not.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 17 at 2014 5:26 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 17 Nov 2014 17:26:19 -0500

...yes...

Response by Sgt Nick Nguyen made Nov 17 at 2014 7:59 PM

Sgt Nick Nguyen — Mon, 17 Nov 2014 19:59:33 -0500

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 17 at 2014 7:58 PM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 17 Nov 2014 19:58:24 -0500

No, not at all. Just because they both "run and gun" does not mean that they are similar. The Marine Corps is an Expeditionary Amphibious Force. I can not see any benefit to the thought of combining the services. No offense to any Solider, but there are just fundamental differences between a Marine and a Solider, and the making of the same.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 17 at 2014 8:10 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 17 Nov 2014 20:10:49 -0500

The Marine Corp is an expeditionary force and the Army is an occupational force. Each has a unique mission which is why it is designed the way it is, and neither can accomplish their mission without assistance for the other branches.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 17 at 2014 8:35 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 17 Nov 2014 20:35:33 -0500

Greatest amphibious assault of all time? Invasion of Normandy, conducted by the U.S. Army. Do we NEED the Marines? Probably not, but they serve their specialized purpose and do it exceedingly well. Marines should be retained if for no other reason than their rich history and espirit de corps which is bar none the highest of all branches.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 18 at 2014 2:49 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 18 Nov 2014 14:49:27 -0500

This is the same question that was proposed in the late 1930s...the Marines proved their need in the pacific campaign based on their proficiency at the amphibious assault. Just because the Army can do it too, it's not their primary training. Each branch has overlaps, but how they conduct themselves in their roles is why we can't lose the Marines.

Response by SMSgt Gary Keltner made Nov 18 at 2014 3:14 PM

SMSgt Gary Keltner — Tue, 18 Nov 2014 15:14:11 -0500

I maybe won't answer your question but I will pose a similar question that you can use to maybe see where I am coming from. Do we need the ATF, FBI, CIA, secret service and US Marshals? Why don't we just make the one cohesive police force?

Response by CPO Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 18 at 2014 3:54 PM

CPO Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 18 Nov 2014 15:54:34 -0500

I think its always good to ask these questions; it brings more perspective to what works and what doesn't. After WWI, the Coast Guard was almost merged into the Navy, but cooler heads prevailed. Each service branch offers unique ability, training, and expertise. Having a fighting force that understands sea-going operations and how to fight an amphibious war is a skill set we will need for a very long time.

Response by Cpl Barry Goodson made Nov 22 at 2014 2:00 PM

Cpl Barry Goodson — Sat, 22 Nov 2014 14:00:17 -0500

To even raise the question is ludicrous. Every democratic nation employs the concept of separate branches of service to ensure mobility and focus toward any given scenario. Each branch of service trains to respond to specific operational readiness, which cannot be accomplished with one national military service. Some countries, especially in the Middle East have only one military unit because of the lack of resources of personnel and lack the military logistics equal to that of the United States. The United States' focus toward helping combat evil around the world in defense of those who are sorely oppressed by dictatorial regimes alone justifies the numerous branches of service within our great country. Each branch works cooperatively toward a common goal...securing our freedoms and the freedoms of others around the world.

Semper Fi Marines!

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 22 at 2014 2:08 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 22 Nov 2014 14:08:30 -0500

No.

Response by SPC(P) Jay Heenan made Nov 22 at 2014 3:14 PM

SPC(P) Jay Heenan — Sat, 22 Nov 2014 15:14:14 -0500

This is a rather interesting topic because I often thought that I would makes sense to have the 'U.S. Military'. We would just have different jobs. Think of all the money the government could save by only have one uniform and one branch. This would never work because of people are ingrained into their own perceptions of 'my service is better than yours'. Not to mention, the General Officers of each service would put this to bed way before open discussions were started. They would lose positions, powers and decision making abilities. However, I think if we were just the U.S. Military, we could become even more effective!

Response by Sgt Nick Marshall made Nov 22 at 2014 5:06 PM

Sgt Nick Marshall — Sat, 22 Nov 2014 17:06:27 -0500

In some ways they are, they both work for the DoD, follow the UCMJ, same pay scales etc... In the end I have to say no, you need different units to push each other to get better, pride. There is a lot more pride in being a Marine than a soldier due to higher demands and tougher training, all due respect to regular army troops, on average they are not up to Marine standards (obvious exceptions apply)

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 31 at 2014 1:23 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 31 Dec 2014 01:23:51 -0500

That would never happened....thank god

Response by SSG William Patton made Dec 31 at 2014 2:18 PM

SSG William Patton — Wed, 31 Dec 2014 14:18:19 -0500

No way. Each branch has its role and different missions they preform. The marines were created for a rapid deployment force and used in the first conflict with muslims over 200 years ago. They still have that capability and have been used for that purpose many times since the Barbary pirates were defeated. The Army too has rapid deployment capabilites, but not in the scope of the Marines. Keep them separate.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 1 at 2015 12:40 AM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 01 Jan 2015 00:40:15 -0500

The Navy is a branch of its own! The marines are a force army is brothers keeper! The Air Force should be combined with the army for the planes are used greater by them!

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 18 at 2015 1:22 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 01:22:46 -0500

No. The missions are separate and distinct. The marines move in quicker and versus the massive mobilization of the army. The marines are 100% expeditionary, the army isn't. Sorry, no. Beyond that the marines fill an important role in the naval services.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 18 at 2015 3:40 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 03:40:52 -0500

No. It is a lighter force with a little bit of ground, air, and sea. Leave it be.

The Army dominates the Land.
The Air Force dominates the Sky.
The Navy dominates the Sea.

The Marines play on all three.

Leave it be.

Response by MSG Scott McBride made Feb 25 at 2015 11:03 AM

MSG Scott McBride — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 11:03:52 -0500

No. They should not consolidate. I love the USMC, but a "merger" if you will, will be very costly but also dilute the traditions and customs of more than 239 years. There are very distinct differences between both branches. It's not a practicle or cost saving move. Let them be. How about we fix our VA program...hey, there's an idea.

Response by SSG James Lopez made Mar 18 at 2015 12:53 PM

SSG James Lopez — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 12:53:20 -0400

I believe that they should not consolidated, we will be breaking many years of traditions etc. Is it the reason that some politician wants to do that to save money or what is the reason?

Response by SFC Charles S. made Mar 18 at 2015 1:03 PM

SFC Charles S. — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 13:03:50 -0400

No! They are different forces with Different Objectives. They do not have to be combined. The thought of losing a Branch of the Armed forces is appalling and devoid of any merit. No argument can be made that would win for any who served in the Marine Corps, if it were to be lost as a Separate Branch of Armed Forces.

Even though they are a sub-branch of the navy. LOL Just Kidding Jar Heads you know I love ya.

Response by SGT Justin Singleton made Mar 18 at 2015 1:07 PM

SGT Justin Singleton — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 13:07:32 -0400

I have thought this for years. There really is no "need" for the Marine Corps to exist anymore—times change and warfare evolves. The real question is how expensive would a merger be? Or perhaps, will it save money?

Response by SSG John Bacon made Mar 18 at 2015 1:13 PM

SSG John Bacon — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 13:13:11 -0400

It would make more sense to have the Marines take over the Army. Then we would Finally win against Navy.

Response by Cpl Sean Murphy made Mar 18 at 2015 1:15 PM

Cpl Sean Murphy — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 13:15:24 -0400

I think there is a political aspect of this too. Since the Marines are under the Navy the can deploy whenever the President sees fit. I'm not sure if the Army can do that without congress. This would make sense as to why the Marines don't have their own separate branch.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2015 1:21 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 13:21:29 -0400

Wow. The butt hurt from this thread is phenomenal! The emotions that just the thought of a combined force has shattered the frail and feeble minds on both sides.

Logically, sure. Cost effective, yes. Practically of the situation? No. Marines are a part of the Navy. The Army, well is focused on "to fight and win our Nation's wars, by providing prompt, sustained, land dominance, across the full range of military operations and the spectrum of conflict, in support of combatant commanders." while the Marines have the "shall, at any time, be liable to do duty in the forts and garrisons of the United States, on the seacoast, or any other duty on shore, as the President, at his discretion, shall direct."

Having military branches that have overlap give us a more rounded fighting force then saying - "You guys fly the planes, um you guys sail some ships, and yeah you left overs do the run and gun..." Having a flexible force dedicated to specialized missions allows us to pick and chose what we bring to the fight.

Is an Army Solider better the a Marine? No.

Is a Marine better then an Army Soldier? No.

We are all Soldiers.

Response by Cpl Craig Loney made Mar 18 at 2015 1:23 PM

Cpl Craig Loney — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 13:23:56 -0400

No way !!! Keep them seperate ... Semper Fi

Response by SSG Branyn Burkhart made Mar 18 at 2015 1:25 PM

SSG Branyn Burkhart — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 13:25:51 -0400

Heeeeck no! That would only bring down and weaken the Corps.

Response by LCpl Kenneth Heath made Mar 18 at 2015 1:27 PM

LCpl Kenneth Heath — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 13:27:51 -0400

Not only "No", but "F*CK NO!"

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2015 1:28 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 13:28:59 -0400

Absolutely not.

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2015 1:31 PM

GySgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 13:31:18 -0400

The answer is NO. We each have our Mission, we should be left alone to do it. It has worked for 240 years. It's always the Army that wants to do away with the Marines. I think you are jealous and want to remove the opposition. If you can't beat the Marines you always try to figure out a way to get rid of us. Get over yourselves and try to make the Army better not try to pull another service down to your level.

Response by Sgt Robert Eckner made Mar 18 at 2015 1:31 PM

Sgt Robert Eckner — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 13:31:25 -0400

Whoever asked this question should be flogged! F'n clown!

Response by Cpl Dr Ronnie Manns made Mar 18 at 2015 1:32 PM

Cpl Dr Ronnie Manns — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 13:32:50 -0400

No, there is a certain swagger that you get after completing basic training in any of the branches that never go away. Trying to tie all of those together appears nothing but problematic and may take years to over-come.

Response by Sgt Frank Gustafson made Mar 18 at 2015 1:43 PM

Sgt Frank Gustafson — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 13:43:39 -0400

Without getting into too much detail... er without getting into any detail at all... NO! But thanks for asking.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2015 1:46 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 13:46:26 -0400

No because the Marines are a just a branch of the Navy. In order to combine the Marines and the Army they would have to take them from the Navy and then join them together. I don't see this ever happening in my future or yours.

Response by SPC Allison Joy Cumming made Mar 18 at 2015 1:49 PM

SPC Allison Joy Cumming — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 13:49:49 -0400

I could debate both sides. I have been out for twenty years so my thoughts may not reflect the current climate.

Yes, it would reduce duplication of higher ranking officials and utilize active and reserve soldiers to their full capacity.

No, the Marines are trained at a different level then the Army is in my opinion. Specialized. Extremely close comradeship that is required for missions beyond the scope of regular Army training. Yes the Army has the Special Forces and Rangers. So if the two were to merge I would assume the Special Forces and Rangers would be the placement for most Marines.

Response by Sgt Alexander Ruiz made Mar 18 at 2015 1:51 PM

Sgt Alexander Ruiz — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 13:51:12 -0400

Yeah.... im going to have to say NO.

I AM a Marine. I not IN the army. There is a HUGE difference between a Marine and an Army Soldier. MOST NOTABLY our training.
regardless if our Mission is somewhat the same, Marines will always be trained to a greater standard.

Why isn't the position reversed ? Why are we not Transitioning the Marine Corps to its over Branch Entirely and Absorbing the Army ? seems to make more sense to integrate into the Better Trained Individual -
Just my opinion

Response by Sgt Daniel Lehman made Mar 18 at 2015 1:54 PM

Sgt Daniel Lehman — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 13:54:36 -0400

That's insane. Two completely different forces, and objectives. That would never happen and could never happen. And, there is no way that it is possible after all of the "Esprit de Corps" and Marine Corps tradition that we have been taught that you could ever ask us to put camaraderie and tradition aside. Not going to happen. No offense, Army, although I guess you guys may feel the same way...

Response by Sgt Michael Johnson made Mar 18 at 2015 1:54 PM

Sgt Michael Johnson — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 13:54:42 -0400

Not just no!

Response by Sgt S.P. Woodke made Mar 18 at 2015 1:56 PM

Sgt S.P. Woodke — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 13:56:33 -0400

is this a Trick Question??? HELL NO to Consolidating...talk about dumbing down the quality of servicemen and servicewomen....

Response by Cpl Robert Camp made Mar 18 at 2015 2:01 PM

Cpl Robert Camp — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:01:55 -0400

I am a Marine. But I can put that aside for the sake of this question.
1. Both Army and Marines share the same basic infrastructure concepts so from at the highest level I can see that this would be something to consider.

2. Trying to keep history and traditions out of any part of any branch of the military is an impossible goal and doomed to fail.

3. If this were to happen, the driving concept and how the Marines are used would have to be a special ops unit within the Army. So what is gained, nothing. You still have a separate command structure, separate gear requirements, and very different mentalities within the top parent group.

As things stand now we have a logical division among the branches, not based on similar gear but based on combat goals. This is the better way to separate so that the goals of one group can be striven for without clouding it with unneeded interim goals.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2015 2:02 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:02:54 -0400

Maybe. It would be a difficult transition with all the pride each service has within its respective ranks. The reasoning for the consolidation would need to be clearly defined before a real decision could be made. That which was offered in the email I got was too vague. There would be some pros and cons. Combining each service's combatives programs would be a plus... but unifying the approach to initial entry training could be a problem. leadership training and approach would also pose challenges. Also, who would guard the Navy on their ships? If it was consolidated, what would it be called? The US Army Corps (USAC) ? The US Marine Army (USMA)? US Combined Combat Forces Command (USCFC) (I like that one)? or maybe...the US Combined Combat Operations Warrior Amalgamation (USCCOWA - US CCan of Whoop Ass)?

Response by Cpl William Malin made Mar 18 at 2015 2:06 PM

Cpl William Malin — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:06:20 -0400

No The title of Marine is special and should not be taken lightly. Marines are a special force that needs to remain independent.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2015 2:08 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:08:07 -0400

I would say yes, but only if Army integrates the same standards of discipline, physical and mental training, plus spirit de corps from marines.

Response by SFC Ken Heise made Mar 18 at 2015 2:12 PM

SFC Ken Heise — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:12:20 -0400

No, the Army and Marines have two vastly different missions. The Marines are an amphibious force whose mission is to provide shipboard security and invade form the sea. The Army is land force .

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2015 2:17 PM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:17:44 -0400

I would say it could be done, and done well.

But to "take traditions out" is nearly impossible. We are nothing without our history.

I think a more reasonable question would be, "Should the Army and Marine Corps cross train and have more joint missions to improve inter-branch cohesion and versatility?"

We are already consolidated under the DoD. Why have more consolidation?

Response by SSG Osguardo Velez made Mar 18 at 2015 2:18 PM

SSG Osguardo Velez — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:18:00 -0400

No i feel both should stay as is, the mentality and tactics defer too much, just saying.

Response by Cpl Gary Alexander made Mar 18 at 2015 2:25 PM

Cpl Gary Alexander — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:25:25 -0400

I'll just assume you are kidding.

Response by CW4 Jeff Buss made Mar 18 at 2015 2:26 PM

CW4 Jeff Buss — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:26:40 -0400

No! It's not the mission differences that are at issue. The Marines are well adapted at working with the Navy on a regular basis. The Army command would be absolutely unable to adjust and accommodate to Navy specific requirements. Only way it could work is to disband the Army and expand the Marines, like that would happen. Better to continue joint training like Army aviation deck qualification, looking for ways to be combine schools and use the same weapon systems. Better option is to give the Navy majority of the Air Force. Give the Army tactical airlift (C-130 and below) and CAS (A-10)!

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2015 2:26 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:26:42 -0400

No. Just no.

Response by 1SG Michael Blount made Mar 18 at 2015 2:27 PM

1SG Michael Blount — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:27:39 -0400

Biggest resistance to this idea I've found has been from the Army. That aside, I think there are MANY reasons to consolidate USA and USMC.
1. Done right, you would infuse surviving uniits with a sense of joint mission - something that I was proud to be part of in Iraq in '04-05, but has rarely happened overall
2.The restructured force would have its own air assets on call, vs. needing USAF support and all the bureaucratic red tape that entails when time is off the essence on the battlefield.
3. MAYBE we can get female Drill Sergeants/Drill Instructors to train all female platoons, vs. this gender-integrated disaster the Army insists on continuing.
4. Common uniforms, weapons, armor, etc would result in long-term cost savings for the American taxpayer.
5. USMC wouldn't be forced to take table scraps and hand-me-downs from other services.
6. Surviving units would be forced to become more agile and nimble.
7. Easier to integrate a SINGLE ground force with naval and air operations.
8. Single chain of command; simplified reporting structure
9. These are all the ones I can think of now, I'm sure others will occur to me as this discussion matures

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2015 2:28 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:28:27 -0400

We would have to retrain the Marines.

Response by CPT James Burkholder made Mar 18 at 2015 2:31 PM

CPT James Burkholder — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:31:23 -0400

Most responses are emotional and address the morale and identification with two groups, both of which are greatly deserved. The Marines have a history of combat that is enviable by any measure: reference Iwo Jima. But also the U.S. Army has equal bravery and success in battle- - reference Patton's Third Army. In addition, the Marines are not composed of groups to actually occupy and secure lands that have been conquered. Without this, no war can be successful.

However, at levels higher than the actual troops and the strategic and tactical operation, monetary savings can be made by having shared equipment that is capable of supporting each groups operations. So I think that merging the highest levels of supply would be good. Even making a joint command at DOD level could be desirable. Something like this could make more money available for the troops rather than duplicating equipment with minor variations that (I think) presently is the case.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2015 2:32 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:32:49 -0400

I'm going to have to go with a giant NO on that. The Marines are still a department of the Navy and should not have to change any of their traditions just to merge with the Army. Also the Army is the oldest of all the branches and should have to lose that just to consolidate and make someone else's job easier. However I would be objected to making the Air Force join ranks with the Army like they were pre-1947. I have worked alongside all four branches for the last 3 years and the only branch I can honestly say does not truly need to be it's own entity is the Air Force.

Response by SSG Ralph Watkins made Mar 18 at 2015 2:33 PM

SSG Ralph Watkins — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:33:23 -0400

Never. I was Army yet was assigned to the Marines in Fallujah in April & May 2004. The Army & the Marines are just so much different in so many ways. It would be degrading for the Marines to lessen themselves to being more like the Army. The Marines train massively for the mission & they are pros at just about every & any mission that comes their way. If you want things killed or fixed, you call in the Marines. If you want a show of forces, a well armed police force, or stabilization, you call in the Army. We found the Army was all about following rules & regs which many times were made by leaders in a FOB sitting behind the desk. With the Marines, we would regularly see their command out in the middle of the shooting, getting trigger time, covering their people's behinds, & making decisions as a combatant, not a chair warmer. The Marines are mission first & foremost. The Army has allowed itself to get away from that. I still love my Army career but when you have near impossible odds or mission, you call the Marines.

Response by LTC Marc King made Mar 18 at 2015 2:33 PM

LTC Marc King — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:33:35 -0400

You pose an interesting question. It comes around about every 50 years or so especially when the Marines have been fighting in places like Iraq and Afghanistan and looking very much like the Army and; a great distance from the sea. It is a budgeteers wet dream and a complete anathema to a Marine or even the Army for that matter.

It’s not just tradition that has to be considered but the roles and missions that each service provided to the national defense. While it is true that many have trouble articulating just when they might expect to see the Marines storm ashore on a defended beach somewhere in the world, making a forced entry on to an enemy’s homeland; I don’t think that it is a capability that should be given up just because you can’t see it happening today. The Marines play a unique role in that regard and it is not one the Army is prepared or trained to do or should be trained to do.

There is a reason why the Congress of the United States gave the USMC their own air force. Carried on board US Navy aircraft carriers Marine Air Wings support Marines first – as it should be. Marines are tailored for being afloat, their equipment is designed to be at sea, better rust proofing then the Army, and they train for the opportunity to kick in the door so the Army can pass through. We have learned these lessons over time and they are good lessons to remember and hold on too.

Each service has its own unique esprit de corps and each has a role to play in our national defense. The Air Force does not need to be merged with the Navy and the Army does not need to merge with the Marine Corps… Inter-service training and interoperability between the forces will give us a balance and operational capability that no one in this world can defeat.

Finally --- keep the politicians out of this. It is a military thing and not a political football. Fund it and we will fight, screw with it and we will all be speaking Mandarin before it is over.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2015 2:35 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:35:36 -0400

I see no reason why they can not, yes you will always have different jobs, and specialties, but at the core both elements are the same. The esprit de corps is no different I have worked with both, and the high level job is the same.. Merging the two would streamline the back end of the house, and that would have benefits to all.

Response by Capt Joel Strieter made Mar 18 at 2015 2:35 PM

Capt Joel Strieter — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:35:45 -0400

I would not recommend this. There is a very different culture in each that would clash. For an excellent description, I would recommend "Underdogs: The Making of the Modern Marine Corps" by Aaron O'Connell.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2015 2:38 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:38:56 -0400

Not at all. I love and respect the Marines and have worked with them many times but we are different entities. We have different jobs and from my point of view most of the NCOs let alone the Soldiers around me could hack it as a Marine. Maybe 17 years ago when Soldiers weren't so soft but now, no way.

Response by CWO2 Shelby DuBois made Mar 18 at 2015 2:40 PM

CWO2 Shelby DuBois — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:40:22 -0400

No. And this argument is as old as the Nation. As soon as the war for Independence was over there was a call to abolish the Marines. Same after the War of 1812, WW1... even after Viet Nam. The Brookings Institute, that glorified Washington think tank, has recommended on more than one occasion that the military can save money by having one branch of service. Bottom line, is that the Marines, the Army and Navy..and even the Air Force, are not commodities that should be bought and sold as a fiscal alternative to a budget crisis...and that's all the argument is ever about... money. It's not that the branches do what they do extremely well, it's not a redundancy of air power, it's not even about uniforms.. it's always about money. So leave out the BS notion that the US would be better off by merging our services and ask yourself when it comes to playing the fiscal accountability card, the arguement more to the point should be .. do we need a House of Representatives AND a Senate?

Response by SPC Daniel O'Neil made Mar 18 at 2015 2:40 PM

SPC Daniel O'Neil — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:40:33 -0400

Keep them separate. In my opinion, Marines need to get back to their mission on the water and the coast line and the Army focus on everything inland. Why we have Marines and Army doing the same mission, Marines so far from water, is beyond me. Each service has it's mission; Air Force... duh. Navy... pretty clear there. Marines.... Marine.... water.... aqua....I will think something to do with water. Army.... well as all armies have been land based, we can safely assume Army means the big force on the big ground. Consolidating would diminish purpose. Marines are where they should be, the infantry of the Navy. Coast killers. Beach holders. My family before me were proud Marines. I was a proud Army Tanker. I was a soldier. There is no less pride in calling myself soldier than when a Marine calls themselves a Marine (however it seems some Marines believe Army aren't as proud).

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2015 2:43 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:43:51 -0400

Consolidation if its practical.

Response by Cpl Michael Riordan, CISM, CISSP, CISA made Mar 18 at 2015 2:46 PM

Cpl Michael Riordan, CISM, CISSP, CISA — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:46:27 -0400

I believe the answer is never! The Marine Corps is too rich with tradition to ever lose it's identity. Becoming a Marine was the biggest accomplishment in my life. Marines are forever in a brother or sisterhood that should never be broken apart. Our reputation is one of fierce warriors to people in and outside of the United States. We need to preserve it for all time.

Response by SSgt Joel Miller made Mar 18 at 2015 2:52 PM

SSgt Joel Miller — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:52:47 -0400

No wold be a huge mistake. To much pride in each service.

Response by LtCol David Gran made Mar 18 at 2015 2:54 PM

LtCol David Gran — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:54:20 -0400

Objectively. No.

Response by SGT James Hunsinger made Mar 18 at 2015 2:55 PM

SGT James Hunsinger — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:55:08 -0400

First, the notion that there are some sort of skills that the Army has compared to the Marines or vice versa is absurd. What skills? Getting off of a boat onto a beach? The Army seemed to do that just fine during Operation Uphold Democracy, just as a more contemporary example that I was personally involved with.

Equipment wise yes, the Marines currently have a more amphibious capability than the Army with their LAVs and AAVs and they have their own combat support fast movers but that's about it and that is more of an equipment capability than any real "skills" held.

If I am coming off insulting to anyone in any way I apologize, it is not my intention, I am simply trying to be objective. Also if there are actual skills that Marines possess that Army Soldiers do not I would honestly like to be educated on them as I am not above learning from my own misconceptions.

The above being said, I do not think it would be an effective merger anyway. All that would happen is you would have an Army with marine or amphibious divisions, regiments, battalions, whatever echelon they would organize them as. Just as we have Armored, Light, Airborne, and Air Assault divisions. A larger budget would be made to accommodate the new units under the Army so I don't think there would be much of a budgetary advantage to it. The same equipment would need to be maintained in order to be effectively "amphibious" for the new marine units in the Army so no real savings in equipment. Our weapons are all the same anyway, no savings there. I don't really see the advantage of a merger.

It is said here to put tradition and history aside but in this instance I don't think that is really possible. Tradition, pride, honor, these are things that BOTH services are steeped in. To merge them would be to drastically alter or subdue one or both of them and this would create more friction, bad sentiment and a more than likely hostile environment for a long time. When you have forces with histories that stretch back as far as these do, you do not simply "merge" them. Not to mention the logistical and administrative nightmares that would come with all of it and all of this with no real gain that I can see.

The old adage still comes to mind..."If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"

Response by PFC Robert Aubrey made Mar 18 at 2015 2:55 PM

PFC Robert Aubrey — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:55:27 -0400

I certainly think it warrants a look. A lot of redundancy that could be eliminated, which would be more efficient and cost effective.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2015 2:58 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:58:47 -0400

No way would I want to have the U.S. Marines lose that unique identity they have. I was in the SOF community when the decision to change the beret was made. It created more than a stir amongst everyone in our midst and in our brotherhood to the point where morale could easily have become an issue. My take: YOU DO NOT SCREW AROUND WITH GREAT TRADITIONS. Period, that is all.

Response by SGT Scorr Williams made Mar 18 at 2015 2:59 PM

SGT Scorr Williams — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:59:21 -0400

No they should not combine. Marines have created a history of neanderthal mentality and poor planning. Also many countries hate the Marines due to the high rate of sex crimes against nationals. The Army plans better and has a broader spectrum of how to deal with issues.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2015 3:01 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:01:02 -0400

No.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2015 3:03 PM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:03:12 -0400

The Army and the Marine Corps should not be consolidated. These services have two completely different missions, roles and responsibilities. We need to keep it that way.

Response by Cpl Christopher Bishop made Mar 18 at 2015 3:05 PM

Cpl Christopher Bishop — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:05:31 -0400

No...and certainly not until at the very very least they can meet USMC Entrance Standards. Yeah Right.

Response by SFC Gary Fox made Mar 18 at 2015 3:05 PM

SFC Gary Fox — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:05:51 -0400

No. The Navy needs their Infantry.

Response by LCpl Nathan Kempter made Mar 18 at 2015 3:06 PM

LCpl Nathan Kempter — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:06:00 -0400

"if it's practical and will lessen bureaucracy"
It isn't practical, because the reason this argument CONTINUES to resurface is for political and bureaucratic reasons. But hey, why not? Let's combine them.
While we're at it, let's combine the Coast Guard and the Navy. They're the same thing, right? Why do we never hear that argument being made? Let's make the Air Force, Army, Marines, Navy and Coast Guard all one, because that'll lessen bureaucracy too.

Response by Sgt Charles A Vroman Jr made Mar 18 at 2015 3:06 PM

Sgt Charles A Vroman Jr — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:06:45 -0400

Here is the primary problem with consolidating the Marine Corps and the Army: They have two different missions and doctrines. The Marine Corps is a QRF and is supposed to go in, destroy what can and needs to be destroyed without hesitation (and quickly enough before higher headquarters changes the ROE's), and hold the ground until the Army can relieve-in-place. Then it becomes the Army's mission and they take command of the AOR. At this point, the Marine Corps either provides support when needed or packs up and goes home/onto the next mission. Combining these two ideologies and doctrines will make for decades of discourse and confusion trying to figure out who does what and where. This is, of course, my humble opinion.

Response by SSgt Christopher Brose made Mar 18 at 2015 3:09 PM

SSgt Christopher Brose — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:09:29 -0400

When I first saw this question posed in my RallyPoint email, the first thing I thought of was command structure. If both services were to be consolidated, which model would the command structure follow? I think either service would be doomed by the other's command structure. (OK, not "doomed", but chaos would ensue.)

The Marines are smaller for a reason. They'll never get the funding the Army does, but they can react to things faster, both operationally and administratively.

Besides, the Marines are already part of the Navy.

Response by Cpl Dustin Ferris made Mar 18 at 2015 3:10 PM

Cpl Dustin Ferris — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:10:03 -0400

Well there it is.... the dumbest thing I will see for 2015.... and its only March...

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Mar 18 at 2015 3:19 PM

Capt Walter Miller — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:19:39 -0400

Simple answer: Disband the Army.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2015 3:20 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:20:41 -0400

Enlisted Marine for 8 years, Army officer now.............No they should not be consolidated. Period. 2 different missions. They fall under 2 different secretaries. The Army is huge and all encompassing. The Marine Corps is relatively tiny and basically only has 2 very specific missions.

Response by Sgt Cody Dumont made Mar 18 at 2015 3:21 PM

Sgt Cody Dumont — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:21:38 -0400

Absolutely not, totally different mission and tactics. Besides if everyone could be a Marine, they would call it the Army. Semper FI.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2015 3:22 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:22:23 -0400

Is this a serious question or an attempt to troll? That being said, the answer is not only no but heck no.

Response by SFC Alfred Lord made Mar 18 at 2015 3:26 PM

SFC Alfred Lord — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:26:50 -0400

Yes

Response by Sgt Jason Bruns made Mar 18 at 2015 3:30 PM

Sgt Jason Bruns — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:30:44 -0400

No. The missions of the two forces are different. I have read some posts about the consolidation that would work with some difficulty, but they are forgetting the basic problem is the units themselves. The Army has 10 soldiers do the job that the Marines do with 4. The soldier is a specialist on his job, the marine is a specialist on every job around his MOS. Marines often operate undermaned and under supported. In one post by a soldier, they stated their rangers are doing the job of the Marines. To me that just states the difference between the soldier and marine.

I would say it would be easier for the Marines to take over the Army's job than the other way around. I say drop the Army and increase the Marines responsibilities.

Response by Cpl Christopher Bishop made Mar 18 at 2015 3:31 PM

Cpl Christopher Bishop — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:31:14 -0400

The first step into destroying it all...is to make them all the same.

Response by Cpl Peter Cannella made Mar 18 at 2015 3:33 PM

Cpl Peter Cannella — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:33:02 -0400

No way, I'd rather stick with the tradition of being a part of the department of the Navy.

Response by SFC David Pope, MBA made Mar 18 at 2015 3:33 PM

SFC David Pope, MBA — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:33:30 -0400

I have worked on a few JTF's in my career. I was an army E-7 and reported to a marine Ltc. He always addressed me as "Gunny" as well as a few other army E-7's in our unit. We would joke around a little, but when rubber met the road we were a team that made stuff happen. I have worked with several other teams that were made up of members of all branches. One of the best bosses I had was a navy Lt Cmdr. I made it a point to know all branches rank and insignias, because I didn't want to be ignorant when addressing an navy Captain by calling him Colonal.

Response by SSG Dermott Howard made Mar 18 at 2015 3:36 PM

SSG Dermott Howard — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:36:02 -0400

No they should not. I served in both branches. They are very different. Army has numbers, Marines depend on speed, army has the airforce. Marines have their own airlift/attack system, which is solely to support the marines on the ground, no bureaucracy of paper work.

Response by SSG Kali Montero made Mar 18 at 2015 3:40 PM

SSG Kali Montero — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:40:03 -0400

What is the reason for the question to be asked? I personally do not see a reason for an Army Marine consolidation.
Without a credible reason besides just a random sampling makes it a non issue. Your question seems to be skewed to force a biased opinion. Difficult not to. They both get called into action and they both bleed and they both die.

Response by Col Anthony White made Mar 18 at 2015 3:40 PM

Col Anthony White — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:40:32 -0400

Negative!

Response by MAJ Mark N. made Mar 18 at 2015 3:46 PM

MAJ Mark N. — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:46:52 -0400

On the face of it, no, I would not advocate merging the Army and Marines, or any of the other services - for all of the "mission, training and tradition" reasons already stated. However, the US is terminally guilty of "fighting the last war". The Defense establishment in the past decade or so has been forced to operate in a more "joint" fashion, but each time, many "service unique" issues have hindered efficient mission accomplishment. The only service member who somewhat understand each other are the senior officers. In these times of shrinking budgets and smaller fighting forces, I would suggest bringing all the services together - at the initial enty point, as the National Defense Force. Each person enlisting into the NDF would be trained in the same basic training - no service biases. The template for the NDF training would be similar to Army or Marine infantry basic training - since the squad/platoon is the best way to train and everyone - at the most barest of terms - is a rifleman. Once the person graduates from the NDF basic training, they can move to the service that they enlisted for - to obtain the additional training in their specialty and further indoctrination into that specific purpose, mostly like what it is today. However, the advantages would be huge cost savings at the initial entry point, a more cohesive defense establishment (as we understand each other better by a common starting experience), hopefully a simple NDF uniform (vs the hundreds of service unique uniforms) and the ability of move and level the force structure as needed. I know it is radical, but I think it has merit.

Response by Col Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2015 3:48 PM

Col Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:48:16 -0400

Actually, the Air Force aircraft, satellites, ISR and BMD should be absorbed by Marine Air and the Army (the ones who can pass our PFT and CFT tests) should be absorbed into our ground forces. The Navy should stay as it is until told otherwise.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2015 3:48 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:48:35 -0400

WAIT! If you try and combine the Marines and the Army how will I be able to pick on my Marine friends that they are technically employed by the Navy?!?

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2015 3:51 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:51:36 -0400

No. Bad idea, because it is like joining two arch rival high school football teams! It would be good in a sense to have the teams combined power and strength, but then again when there are two different high school football teams it opens more doors and opportunities for a championship like better percentages for the district to win a title. Just like the name Rally point it is always better to have two Rally points then one, because if one point is compromised there is always and alternatived. Think about it in these terms the last time that our country was in all out war was World War 2. Naval battles, dog fights, the Marines fighting in Japan and the Army fighting in Europe. It is like playing the lottery you don't just buy one ticket you buy multiple tickets. It spreads your odds of winning! Just like in combat!

Response by SGT Jim Ramge, MBA made Mar 18 at 2015 3:53 PM

SGT Jim Ramge, MBA — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:53:05 -0400

There will always be some sort of tradition or set of traditional values that would be affected if a joint venture were to occur. Individuals do not like there shoes stomped on when it comes to their services, mainly due to pride. It is a basic part of the initiation and right of passage upon joining one of the service elements with the umbrella of the Department of Defense. Personally, after reading some of the more objective comments, I would be okay with seeing the Air Force be returned to a joint service element under the Department of the Army. The Coast Guard which a lot of us forget about, and the Marines, should fall under the Department of the Navy. Objectively speaking, the Marines already fall under the Navy, but there is not a Marine that appreciates that notion and out of respect for both, I'll leave the pun out of the posting. Operationally, the Air Force and Army use very similar platforms as well as in many cases now, already have Joint-Air Bases functioning for their aircraft, two that I know of particularly, Joint McCord/Lewis and Bragg/Pope, so it makes total sense. Nothing wrong with seeing the services meld, as we do it all the time now when we fight, both logistically and being stationed together. The Army and Air Force pay comes out of the same Pay system, just another simple meld. Same goes to the Marine Corp and Navy. I honestly am not sure about the Coast Guard, but the rank structures are almost the same as the Navy, and I can only assume that they fall under the Navy with regards to pay purposes as well. Logistically, and in most cases, I believe the above to be true and in good consciousness. Respectfully, the fact remains that in the best interest of the service elements the combining might be the best course of action to save many on many of joint programs currently in use, or to add value to those projects. Some of the same platforms are used and those monies would be better used if jointly permitted against the contracting world. Example of these uses of late are the old A-10 and Predator during the Wars and conflict for the past decade plus. Unfortunately, with the current money situation, the civilians running the government have flat-out put the services elements into a bind.

Response by COL Timothy S. made Mar 18 at 2015 4:02 PM

COL Timothy S. — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 16:02:17 -0400

Absolutely not! The Army and Marines focus on two different mission sets: ground assault versus amphibious assault. Rather than mucking around with the political dynamite of either the Marines or Army absorbing the other because of some perceived duplication in capabilities, we should first be removing duplications in non-combat related C2 structure. Example: USAR and National Guard. Both are consisered Reserve Components of the Army, and both have MASSIVE top-heavy administrative C2 structures. Yet only the National Guard actually has any constitutional authority to exist. Why don't we consolidate the National Guard and Reserves and cut the cost of administering the reserve components in half?

Response by Cpl Robert Masi made Mar 18 at 2015 4:04 PM

Cpl Robert Masi — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 16:04:01 -0400

To me, this is a question of standards, and objectives. The Marines not only have higher standards, but have the training for higher risk missions.
I remember talking to an Army guy that was stationed in South Korea. This was when North Korea was talking about invading a few years ago. He specifically said that if North Korea decided to invade, he would drop his weapon right away, and surrender.
The people that the Army appeals to are hood rats and street brawlers, and more than not, have no real allegiance. Additionally, they have been held hostage by special interest groups to be all "Inclusive" which means even lower standards than usual. Now the Marines are doing the same.
The new American way is that it's "Not Fair" that some can achieve more. It's not fair that some are better. It's not fair that some get a trophy, and others do not. This concept of the new Progressive America, is what's driving women into MOSes that they clearly aren't suited for. And this is what's pushing the Marines and Army together.
The fact that this is a conversation, means the conversation is over. The Liberals already won. And it saddens me to know how weak America is becoming. And there may be a time sooner than later, that I will move my family out of this country before Democrats and Liberals Collapse it.

:::Hell, I've got an Army Roommate. He's a 32 yr old Man-Child with the video games and cartoons. He tortures mice, and when I'm around, I'm I have to mercy kill them. He is delusional about violence....He'd never make it in the Marines. But he could sure as shit get into the Army.

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2015 4:04 PM

GySgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 16:04:32 -0400

Honestly no they should not merge.
All Bias, loyalties and other things aside we do have too separate of a role.
Our mission is drastically different than the Army. I could see the Air Force (no offense to any airmen but would make sense if something had to be done) being merged back to what it once was or possibly even a merger of the Air force and the navy as the navy has a fairly large air role as well. That being said my vote would be that no merger existed.

This next statement isn't to try and say we are better than any other branch but the Marine Corps has the history of doing the same or more with less. We have the lowest budget and still achieve great results. On top of this, much of our budget is already covered under the USN so even though many of us will not admit and I am not saying I do, we technically already are semi linked with the Navy. While the Marines and Army have similar roles they are not the same, tactics are different between the two services as well as our methods. To integrate would cause many issues from beliefs to history to leadership problems. That is just my opinion though

Response by LtCol Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2015 4:08 PM

LtCol Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 16:08:06 -0400

A corps and an army have different status in international law. It's far easier to deploy the former than the latter. The Marine Corps has jet aircraft, the army doesn't. The Corps is ship and amphibious oriented, the army isn't. The Marines are historically a fast moving, task oriented, ready to deploy, light infantry trained specifically to seize, hold and defend a beachhead while the army's training and doctrine is to wage sustained long-term warfare.

And most importantly, we are The Marines.

j

Response by Sgt Rick Arnold made Mar 18 at 2015 4:08 PM

Sgt Rick Arnold — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 16:08:46 -0400

The biggest reason for not consolidating I s even though both branches are combat oriented, they have completely diffident missions. The Marines have been and continue to be a Martime based fighting force, designed and trained for quick response from the ocean. The Army in their right are a land based force, trained for deployment in that theater of war and tws

Response by GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad made Mar 18 at 2015 4:09 PM

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 16:09:25 -0400

HELL NO!!! . . . the Army needs somebody to look up to!!! :-) :-) :-) :-)

Response by SFC Gregory Blue made Mar 18 at 2015 4:09 PM

SFC Gregory Blue — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 16:09:29 -0400

No! Army is Army and Marines are Navy Ground Squids!

Response by SSgt Leonard Johnson made Mar 18 at 2015 4:19 PM

SSgt Leonard Johnson — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 16:19:05 -0400

I have nothing against the US Army, but consolidation of the two forces in my opinion I could not support. I'm a Marine and the Marine Corps is what it is because of the,"Few," who make it. You have to be a Marine to understand. I don't have anything against the other armed forces because in the end during war time we are glad to see each other. Semper Fi.

Response by LCpl Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2015 4:23 PM

LCpl Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 16:23:39 -0400

No. Putting aside my pride as a marine I say no just because both branches operate much differently, I could see constant conflict if we were to merge.

Response by MSgt Clifton Hinson made Mar 18 at 2015 4:30 PM

MSgt Clifton Hinson — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 16:30:17 -0400

As long as they all go through Marine boot camp and are called Marines I say why not!

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Mar 18 at 2015 4:35 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 16:35:54 -0400

No, and here's the reason.

The Marine Corps falling under the Navy gives the Nation a CONSTITUTIONAL advantage.

We are required to "raise" and Army (Art 1 section 8, Army Clause). We are required to "maintain" a Navy (Art 1, section 8, Navy Clause). As such, by the Marines falling under the Navy, as a Corps, we are not subject to the same restrictions that the Army is.

It is not that the Army cannot accomplish Marine missions (and they are littoral missions, as opposed to amphibious missions in the modern world), nor is it that Marines cannot accomplish Army missions. We are both capable of doing either. We are not "tailored" to do so however, nor should we be.

Marines, by birth, have a philosophical outlook that is designed around the taking of objectives. We are mission oriented, which changes the scale we operate when compared to an organization like the Army. The Army's philosophy is just "different," not better or worse, just different. Excluding Okinawa, we don't really "occupy" countries for 50+ years at a time. And when you look at Okinawa, we rotate existing units through there to create the impression that we do. We're a constantly mobile force, as opposed to a defensive one.

This gives us a very distinct advantage when it comes to small level operations. Could the Army do it? Sure. Should the Army do it? No. It takes 20~ Marine support personnel foe every grunt on the ground. It takes probably double that for every Soldier. The advantages of scale are just too great.

Response by SGT Larry Taylor made Mar 18 at 2015 4:39 PM

SGT Larry Taylor — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 16:39:23 -0400

No because each are trained for specific oriented missions. I was in the army but worked along side all branches in my field. The does a good job so my next comment isn't cutting anyone down. The Marines are more hardcore. They also train to work more amphibious missions which is an asset. An old wise saying could be considered at this point: If it ain't broke don't fix it.

OooooRah!

Response by SGT Drue Rockwell made Mar 18 at 2015 4:41 PM

SGT Drue Rockwell — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 16:41:03 -0400

Having served in the infantry I'd say yes but trim the fat on both and adopt ranger mentality on it.

Response by Sgt Franklin B. made Mar 18 at 2015 4:42 PM

Sgt Franklin B. — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 16:42:19 -0400

Leave things like they are. Both Army and Marines are proud of their history. Both have different missions to carry out with the respect to the big picture. I am a Marine and proud of serving and adding to its history. We have the best armed forces in the world. I don't think we should mess things up.

Response by Sgt Ken Gergely made Mar 18 at 2015 4:47 PM

Sgt Ken Gergely — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 16:47:07 -0400

No, historically this has been a question asked many times, mainly since the end of WW1. There were many officers in the Army who were upset over the results of WW1, with General Pershing denying any one Army unit to be singled out for recognition there were a lot of pissed off soldiers when Marine units were given credit because they were smaller and stuck out more. There is absolutely no reason to eliminate 2 plus centuries of tradition and history, no one should want that to happen. The Army and Marine Corps are different in nature and everyone knows that, it is not about being better or worse it is about the size and maneuverability of the force that makes us different. Not to mention that only the Marine Corps can deployed without the President declaring war, a function that has served the United States well over the years.

Response by SSG Richard Kamps made Mar 18 at 2015 4:50 PM

SSG Richard Kamps — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 16:50:28 -0400

Keep the Marines with the Navy and send the Air Force back to the Army. It worked well that way.

Response by 1SG Harold Piet made Mar 18 at 2015 4:52 PM

1SG Harold Piet — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 16:52:00 -0400

No disrespect intended, but I feel that the Marines and the Navy is a better match. I feel that the DOD and the Commanders of and their E-9 should come together and decide the best and most cost effective method of accomplishing the mission. Not retired recliner intelligence or our sorry group of politicians that have never had a job running anything.

Response by CPL Jeffery Gobble made Mar 18 at 2015 4:52 PM

CPL Jeffery Gobble — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 16:52:41 -0400

No... and being an Army Veteran who trained with all branches, it isn't about who's better. It's about differences in traditions. The Navy would do better to reabsorb the Marine Corp and the Army to reabsorb the Air Force as both have like traditions that can work well for one another. The Army and Marine Corp would clash in many ways between doctrine and attitude.

Response by SPC Jeffrey Baker made Mar 18 at 2015 4:53 PM

SPC Jeffrey Baker — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 16:53:19 -0400

No. Should just get rid of the marines. The army already does what they do and more. So just dx them and give army Their missions..

Response by SPC Ken Klein made Mar 18 at 2015 4:54 PM

SPC Ken Klein — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 16:54:03 -0400

At first glance, it seems a reasonable question. But the two missions are just not similar enough to warrant a merger. USMC is a rapid reaction force, tasked with quick light, little armour or artillery, as a get in and hold the line until heavier equipped are available for the long haul troops are deployed. Although the Army has "light" battalions and divisions their equipment, compared to the Marines, is not light and reaction time is usually more than a few hours.

Just can't see what will be gained and lost by such a move.
Ken Klein (PFC USMC/ SP5 USAR)

Response by SGT Larry Taylor made Mar 18 at 2015 4:57 PM

SGT Larry Taylor — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 16:57:52 -0400

The only way I could see it work is to adapt the marine corps basic training that makes all training uniformed hard core. Then train them for their jobs which I might add is already being done in a lot of fields. Then you have to realize that not everyone wants to be as hard core as the Marines so they join different branches for that reason. I'm not saying there aren't hard core soldiers in every branch but if you look at this honestly you know the answer. But then they would all be Marines. LOL
So is that what they will be called?

Response by SPC David Hannaman made Mar 18 at 2015 4:58 PM

SPC David Hannaman — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 16:58:14 -0400

Absolutely not. While both are ground combat oriented the similarities end there. I have several friends who are Marines (once a Marine always a Marine), and while I'd be happy to have them beside me in a fight, we are different to the core.

Without trying to advocate one branch or the other, fundamental differences exist, in tactics, culture, and mentality. Both are effective, but different. Merging them together would create a less diverse and more easily defeated military.

Response by SFC Brian Gillum made Mar 18 at 2015 4:59 PM

SFC Brian Gillum — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 16:59:49 -0400

No.

Naval infantry is wholly different than regular land warfare.

Granted the logistics and some of the support services that aren't already handled by the Navy could be farmed out to the Army.

It would be better to consolidate certain functions within a particular service and then assign personnel to provide those services to whatever branch requires them.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2015 5:02 PM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 17:02:03 -0400

If you are going to do that you may as well do away with all of the Service Departments (DON/DOA/DAF). It would cut a lot of fat and waste from the system.

The US Military would then retain it branches along strict mission lines:
If it floats it belongs to the Navy
If it flys (even off of a boat) it belongs to the Air Force
expeditionary forces - Marines even if they are on a ship
Occupying forces - Army

Servicemen would be servicemen and thus free to move about the branches but like today MOS and Officer designations would be used to dictate career path in their specialty.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2015 5:10 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 17:10:34 -0400

I'm sure it said think objectively traditions and camaraderie aside so let's talk about what the Army and the Marine Corps brings to the table as separate branches and if it's a good idea to be one

Response by SFC Jack Bennett made Mar 18 at 2015 5:11 PM

SFC Jack Bennett — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 17:11:49 -0400

No. You cannot sit Tradition aside. Stay as is. At the same time because of todays mission it would take on a costly retraining and cross training program.

Response by PO2 Christopher McClintic made Mar 18 at 2015 5:19 PM

PO2 Christopher McClintic — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 17:19:39 -0400

No offense to any other branch, but since the Marine Corps falls under the Depart of the Navy, I would make more sense to join those two.

Response by PV2 Phillip Price made Mar 18 at 2015 5:23 PM

PV2 Phillip Price — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 17:23:00 -0400

I don't think that thay should consolidate it's two different schools of thinking and that's a good thing keeps the enemy guessing and that's a good thing in my book

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2015 5:23 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 17:23:07 -0400

Absolutely not. Traditions and all aside that would defeat the purpose of the Marines. Yes we started as amphibious warriors, essentially soldiers on ship, but that wasn't the purpose. Air, land, sea... the reason for the three is because we can do it all. The Corps in recent years has been used to fight wars; however, this is against its original design.
A smaller, tougher, quicker, and ever ready fighting force that will power through the toughest, bravest, and beat our enemies have. We were meant to fight key battles and take targets nobody else can or is willing to take. So no, the army and marines should not consolidate. OOH-fukin-RAH!

Response by SSG Mike Angelo made Mar 18 at 2015 5:23 PM

SSG Mike Angelo — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 17:23:29 -0400

US Marine Detachments at US Army TRADOC posts, camps and installations have been integrated as far back as 1976 when I was a Private. As an NCO instructor, my raters and endorsers were Army and Marine NCOs.

There were operational barriers and limitations between the services. In my era, the most influential would be a Marine Det Commander because he/she has the authority to pull the Marine Detachment out from the US Army post, camp and/or installation, leaving the Army to fill the gaps.

Certain jobs are not transferrable.

US Embassy Security duty is a Marine thing. Sorry Army...

Response by SSG LaRon Ellis made Mar 18 at 2015 5:30 PM

SSG LaRon Ellis — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 17:30:47 -0400

As a Soldier, and Son of a proud Devil Dog, I completely understand the allure the Marines have. I tried to join the Corps every year from 13-17 yrs old. Not because of any thing other than their culture and image. I love being a NCO and Soldier but nothing sounds better than saying I'm a Marine.

However, cultures aside their role and ours have merged dramatically over the years. In fact the military as a whole is a blurred line. I mean the Navy has an Air Force and so does the Army and Marine Corps. The Marines are essentially an Army thanks to GWOT, and the fact that most U.S. Commands are joint now the need for service integrity is obsolete. With ever present budget cuts, a merge of all branches is not only practical but also cost effective.

Response by MAJ Thomas Person made Mar 18 at 2015 5:34 PM

MAJ Thomas Person — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 17:34:33 -0400

I see many troopers and Navy personnel such as Marines talking about elite. While I will stay away from that subjective subjects such as the 75th Ranger Regiment, an elite organization which is not talked about outside the Regiment. There is a reason for that.

First the Marines designed and have executed their job with élan. They are a contingency organization. They have a unique capability. Power projection via the USN.

The Army is a campaign planner and executer. If the lodgment is made by the Department of the Navy's infantry (wink) than the Army moves in as it becomes the executive agency for long term logistics and carries out the arduous task of securing COUNTRIES not just seizing an runway, dam or port.

In summation the Army has something the Marines cannot do for long term and the Army does something the Marines cannot do. Each has their place and has been a pretty good team for about 230+ years.

I do believe most Marines are acceptable as they as close to Rangers as the Navy has.

No Bullsh%t. In all seriousness the way the services are being chipped away at we cannot do without each other. The Marines and the Army CANNOT exist without the other. We will all probably be at some last stand together before 2016.

.

Response by MAJ Keira Brennan made Mar 18 at 2015 5:35 PM

MAJ Keira Brennan — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 17:35:23 -0400

SLAPPING MY FOREHEAD!
GOOD GRIEF...

My Dad served in both the USMC and Army told me that the Marine Corps is America's shock for on "Air, Land, and the Sea..." whereas the Army conquers continents. Both services have different roles. There's some sharing of course but good Lord. NO...

I think Ike tried to do that once upon a time.

Response by Sgt Evan Proctor made Mar 18 at 2015 5:36 PM

Sgt Evan Proctor — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 17:36:38 -0400

Of course the Navy guy brings this up ;)

Response by Cpl Patrick Brent made Mar 18 at 2015 5:36 PM

Cpl Patrick Brent — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 17:36:46 -0400

Baloney

There will always be a United States Marine Corps

Semper Fidelis Leathernecks

Marine General Lejeune / luh jern would be upset.

Semper Fidelis & God bless all Leathernecks !

KEEP ATTACKING !!!

OOO RRAH !

Response by SPC Edward Tapper made Mar 18 at 2015 5:37 PM

SPC Edward Tapper — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 17:37:59 -0400

A resounding NO from me. The Marines were designed to be a light strike force while the Army was geared more towards long-term sustainment during wartime. The Marines come in and hit 'em fast and hard and the Army comes in behind them to provide cover and support for a Marine withdrawal and an Army occupation. That is precisely the way it was designed to work.

Response by SFC Benjamin Parsons made Mar 18 at 2015 5:45 PM

SFC Benjamin Parsons — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 17:45:57 -0400

Being one of those rare birds (hardly unique) that proudly served in both, I'd have to say no.
Certainly much more similar than back in my day, they're still different enough to merit their own branch.
Way more complicated than it appears on the surface.

Response by PFC Jeff Stone made Mar 18 at 2015 5:46 PM

PFC Jeff Stone — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 17:46:06 -0400

I could more easily see an Army Air Corps with the integration of the Army and Air Force as opposed to an integration of the Marines and the Army. With the Air Force and Army coming back together it would be a rejoining of what once already existed. The Marines however have always been a part of the navy but have been elite part of that branch of the military. So from the Navy you have the Marines and the SEALS. From the army you have the Rangers, the Green Berets, and the airborne Corps. But you also have airborne Marines airborne Air Force, airborne Navy and airborne SEALS. It would almost make more sense to pull the airborne groups out completely and make them an elite special force as opposed to trying to intermingle the army and the Marine Corps. Having served in the Army and in the National Guard I just don't see how the pride of the two different branches would work to anyone's advantage.

Response by Cpl Dave Ulmer made Mar 18 at 2015 5:47 PM

Cpl Dave Ulmer — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 17:47:12 -0400

This is not a new idea. It failed because the roles and training are different. The USMC is a smaller precision unit designed to establish a foothold quickly in foreign territory. Then, they would secure the AREA and set up landuko dute where the USN and USAF would being in the USArmy. From that foothold, the USArmy would move forward into enemy lines and destroy the enemy. Although technology har changes, the basics have not.

Response by Sgt Debbie Pogue Dolan made Mar 18 at 2015 5:52 PM

Sgt Debbie Pogue Dolan — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 17:52:18 -0400

I don't believe they should consolidate. Both have very different standards and values. I believe that the Maine Corps would and should never lower their standards. By the same token how can you all of a sudden make a soldier live up to the Marine way of life? Had the soldier wanted that lifestyle they would have joined the Marine Corps instead of the Army. The Air Force broke away from the Army, let them return to them. The Marine Corps was created to be the defenders of the Navy and this awesome country. So I say leave them alone and let them do their job. Leave them under the department of the Navy where they belong.

Response by SGT William Howell made Mar 18 at 2015 5:54 PM

SGT William Howell — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 17:54:12 -0400

You want to see why they should not be together? Pick a island in the middle of nowhere and give both the Army and the Marines the order to get there with a sustainable fighting force to include heavy fighting vehicles. See who gets there first!

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2015 6:05 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 18:05:32 -0400

What would they be called, MARMY, ARMINES, ARMMAR, RAMARM,ARINES? The answer is not "No ,but Hell No". Who sits around and thinks up this crap? All branches of the military, including Coast Guard, date wayyyy back and have their own Esprit Decors. Tell me this ain't gonna happen. What a slap in the face to the old and new jarheads, and the old Army Air Corps, and the "The Army Of One". This is preposterous.

Response by Sgt Robert Holden made Mar 18 at 2015 6:06 PM

Sgt Robert Holden — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 18:06:30 -0400

No. Marines don't do heavy bureaucracy. Marines operate on next to nothing by default and expect next not nothing. They have a respect for their NCOs (in most cases) that is unparalleled. In a Marine Infantry Platoon a Corporal is a force to be reckoned with. Hell, a Lance Corporal is a force.

The other services tend to regard rank as a rate of pay. Marines only see Leaders and Future Leaders (or Future Civilians :-) ).

Back to bureaucracy, the other services, excluding possibly the Coast Guard, can't seem to operate without it, the Marines seem to live to subvert it. Getting the mission done is more important to a Marine than documenting it. I know I found every creative way I could to get what I needed without the hassle of paperwork. The only people that ever got worked up about it were the bureaucrats, but you can't argue with results. Whine about the method, but if the mission is complete, that's all that matters. That, to me, is where Marines live.

Institutional Improvisation. We tell our Privates, PFCs, and LCpls, on the occasion that they skyline themselves with a bad attempt, "good initiative, bad judgement." They learn to try again and again and again. The smart ones figure out how to make it work.

I'm sure the Army has plenty of sharp actors, and I personally know quite a few. The ones that most closely model the Marine improv mentality are the high-end SOF guys, Delta or Green Beret. They're all independent operators and have to think on their feet. I'm not saying all Marines are equal to Delta or GB, they're not, but as a service the Corps exhibits this mentality, this fortitude.

Besides the Coast Guard, you don't get that from any other service, at least from my casual observation. By way of example, I was on a counter drug mission on the Yuma border, back before that shepherd boy got shot, and the Army was overwhelmed by our reporting. They went so far as to say we out-reported/interdicted the SF group that came before us without resorting to the apparent finger pointing that went on. True story. Line company grunts, a Sniper and one Intel Analyst. No fancy training, no fancy equipment, barely any logistics. Get 'er done.

That's the Marine Corps. Semper Gumby, Get 'er done, Semper Fi.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2015 6:07 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 18:07:09 -0400

Absolutely not. The Army is running on a corporate structure and are extremely quick to throw their comrade "under the bus". The marines actually focus on teamwork, physical fitness, effective training and a "Structured Order". The Army does not present too much of a "Structured Order" because it has become a over evolving "buddy system" that has been quite taxing to the standards of military service altogether. I have had the privilege of serving in both branches and I say "Absolutely NOT". In order for this type of merger to take place, there is alot of senior leadership to include E6-E9 and O5-O10 that needs to be expidited out of the military. As for Department Officials, the current staff needs to be relieved because current thought processes aligned with Marine standards will be extremely conflicting. The days of "dumbifying" our servicemen and servicewomen and "checking the block" on thraining are over.

Response by CSM John Jackson made Mar 18 at 2015 6:07 PM

CSM John Jackson — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 18:07:11 -0400

When it ain't broke, don't try to fix it! I am Army, but love the Marine Corps because of their leaned and adopted CAN DO anything mind set. Each branch of service has their specialty areas, and are proud of what they do well. Politicians and bureaucrats should stay behind their desk and work on ways to make our borders secure, then trust the Marines and Army to do their given missions. Stay to hell out of screwing with the proud member of their own services.

CSM (R)

Response by SGT Marvin "Dave" Bigham made Mar 18 at 2015 6:10 PM

SGT Marvin "Dave" Bigham — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 18:10:05 -0400

Negative. Different training, recruiting, operations, and battle functions. I see it watering down the military rather than building up the ground combat units we have now. Specialization has created the world's strongest military.

Response by SCPO Lawrence Schultz made Mar 18 at 2015 6:22 PM

SCPO Lawrence Schultz — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 18:22:31 -0400

As a true objective opinion, could a huge pile of money be saved by combining forces? YES! And that is true for ALL of the forces - just in supply/logistics, and administrative purposes - if all 4 branches used the same system it would reduce cost across the entire enterprise.

NOW the REAL question is: Would a combining of the USMC and the Army make a more effective fighting force?

For the last 15 years Navy Sailors have been filling specialized billets with boots on the ground embedded in Army units to fill gaps within other services. This demonstrates the training from one branch can directly translate to another branch and work side by side effectively.

To work, it would mean everyone involved would have to drop the ego of their past to combine the best of both forces to build a solid team. I will let the professional Soldiers figure out which would be a more effective fighting force.

Response by SGT Jason Dougherty made Mar 18 at 2015 6:26 PM

SGT Jason Dougherty — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 18:26:28 -0400

Bureaucracies are harder to kill than Marines unfortunately. For that matter, why not just consolidate all of them? Combine the Navy, Air Force, Army and Marines into one United States Military lump. I can assure you, one big bureaucracy wouldn't be better than several smaller ones.

The smarter thing would be to pull the Marines back into their traditional role of securing the Navy and quit trying to make them into occupying ground forces deep inland. If you're going to consolidate the Marines with someone, it should be the Navy.

Response by SSgt Richard King made Mar 18 at 2015 6:28 PM

SSgt Richard King — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 18:28:42 -0400

NO!!! Marines are trained much different and better than the Army. Marine basic training is 13 weeks vs Army's 8 week. Every Marine (male and female) are basically trained riflemen. PT and uniform standards are much stricter with USMC doling a 3 mile run vs the Army's 2 mile jog. And let's not forget the Marine Corps combat fitness course. Simple put the army couldn't hack it and the Marines should not be expected to "dumb down" standards to become "all-inclusive".

Response by SSG Nick Moss made Mar 18 at 2015 6:34 PM

SSG Nick Moss — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 18:34:30 -0400

The Marines and the army serve two different functions, and should be keep as separate services. The army is not trained to serve as a Fleet force, and, except for the rapid response units, the army is not able to be on station within 24 hours. This has nothing to do with the capabilities of the individuals, it's about training. I have been proud to have served, which I did in 1966, beside a Marine, an Air Force forward observer, or a navy corpsman (who saved my life).

I, however, can't fathom why all the services have an air wing. At one time it was just the army. Then the navy wanted naval aviators. Then the Air Force separated from the army. Then the Marines wanted their own aircraft. The army then reformed it's own air arm with rotary and light fixed wing aircraft. Add the Coast Guard and NOAA and the only uniformed service without aviation capability is the Public Heath Service.

What a waste.

Response by LCpl Shawn Carter made Mar 18 at 2015 6:34 PM

LCpl Shawn Carter — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 18:34:34 -0400

Absolutely not. Although both are combat focused the Marine Corps is actually taught how to fight and win. I can speak from experience here as I was in the Marine Corps and all of my brothers were in the army...one was a tanker, and the other two were in the 82nd. When asked the most basic of tactical questions, none of them could give a fit, sound response. My wife is an officer in the Army, and she had to go through boot camp. I must say, I am unsure what the point of Army boot camp is...no basic infantry skills, no courtesy and customs...no pride.

Add to this the stark differences in missions and capabilities between the two forces. The Corps is, for lack of a better term, linearly integrated. We have land sea and air, and we can combine them without much fuss, the army has no such capability. You would either have to lower the Marine training standards or raise Army training standards. Either way, not going to happen.

Response by SSgt Tyron Hinton made Mar 18 at 2015 6:36 PM

SSgt Tyron Hinton — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 18:36:25 -0400

The Army and Marines have two very different missions. The Army is designed to be a occupying force. While the Marine Corps is an expeditionary quick reaction force. This mindset is part of their ethos, and as such cant be separated. If they tried to combine the two unfortunately you'd end up with one of the other not both.

Response by Cpl Robert Masi made Mar 18 at 2015 7:03 PM

Cpl Robert Masi — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 19:03:04 -0400

-------Why in hell can't the Army do it if the Marines can? They are the same kind of men; why can't they be like Marines.
Gen. John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, U.S. ARMY
--“If I had one more division like this First Marine Division I could win this war.”
General of the Armies Douglas McArthur in Korea
--"The deadliest weapon in the world is a MARINE and his rifle!"
GEN. PERSHING, US.ARMY
--"The more Marines I have around, the better I like it."
General Clark, U.S. Army
----There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion.
Gen. William Thornson, U.S. Army
--"There is no military body in our country of higher efficiency than the Marine Corps.
They take great pride in their profession. They never let things slack a bit."
Rear Admiral C.M. Wilslow, U.S. Navy
--"They (Marines) have given us our only real fight." Commanding Officer of the British, War 0f 1812
--“Marines know how to use their bayonets. Army bayonets may as well be paper-weights." Navy Times; November 1994
--"I have just returned from visiting the MARINES at the front, and there is not a finer fighting organization in the world!"
GEN DOUGLAS MACARTHUR, US.ARMY
--"The safest place in Korea was right behind a platoon of MARINES. LORD, how they could fight!"
MAJGEN FRANK LOWE, US.ARMY
--"You cannot exaggerate about the Marines. They are convinced to the point of arrogance, that they are the most ferocious fighters on earth - and the amusing thing about it is that they are."
- Father Kevin Keaney, 1st MarDiv Chaplain, Korean War
---We have two companies of Marines running rampant all over the northern half of this island, and three Army regiments pinned down in the southwestern corner, doing nothing. What the hell is going on?
Gen. John W. Vessey Jr.

----In 2003 when the Marines and the Army 3d Infantry Division had taken down Baghdad and had truck convoys scattered all the way into Kuwait, I was a plans officer at USCENTCOM when our intelligence intercepted an order from the Iraqi insurgency commander. It was a field order to all the insurgent unit commanders and it went something like this:

"Resistance Commanders, When attacking supply and truck units you must be aware that there are two different American "armies":

1. The US Army which wears tan desert uniforms like this (photo of a
Soldier wearing the old desert uniform); and.

2. The US Marine Corps which wears a different uniform like this (photo of a Marine wearing the newly issued USMC digital uniform).
When planning your attacks on supply lines and truck convoys ensure that you do NOT attack a US Marine unit. If you do, these supply-unit Marines will immediately act like Army infantry and they will attack you and hunt every one of your men down and kill them. The US Army truck and supply units will not pursue you. Attack them instead."

----In Iraq, the Contract Truckers started refusing to go on Convoys with the Army as security, because they knew they were safer with MARINES....I was there, I can attest to that.

..........I don't need to trump myself up. Others who are more respected can do that for me. But as the Standards of Marines are lowered, these negative comments from the Army and Navy are absolutely right. At some point, we'll be just like them.....but not yet.

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Mar 18 at 2015 7:04 PM

SSG Gerhard S. — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 19:04:53 -0400

I don't think anything is gained by combining the Marines and the Army. Though the Marines and the Army DO share the combat arms disciplines, the Marines do have specialized missions that set them apart from most Army Missions. Combining the two services would either require yet another specialized force within the Army, OR require an additional level of training for ALL Army personnel. Working in close quarters with the Navy as expeditionary type forces is the Marine's specialty, and it isn't just something that should be added onto every Soldier's training for the (relatively) small number of Marines necessary to fulfill that mission. The Marines have a valid and specialized role in our Military, and should remain as their own entity. My opinion.

On another note, there are a host of questions that could arise from the "combination" argument... for example, should there be only ONE Air Force? That is, should Naval Aviators be integrated into the Air Force? For the same reasons listed above I'd argue no.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2015 7:15 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 19:15:38 -0400

Absolutely Not !! To my knowledge the Marines have not lowered every standard in the book like the Army has so certain personnel could pass schools, attain rank, command units, pass boards,etc. The Army lowered standards to meet people rather than raise the people to meet standards. I was forced on several occasions to re-write an EER for individuals because the First Sergeant said " it will look too bad for him to be promoted" so rather than show the truth. I had to lower my standards and Lie and this happened several times in my career. I had an individual with orders in hand to go to a service school one time, but had to pull him because the First Sergeant and Commander wanted to send a less qualified and less deserving soldier. So, no I would never want to see the Marines have to lower their high standards. Yes, I served all 21 years in the US Army.

Response by Cpl Tim Alger made Mar 18 at 2015 7:17 PM

Cpl Tim Alger — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 19:17:22 -0400

Would it be the army or marines? Let's be honest! It's not a put down if it's the truth. Marines are held to a higher standard. Would the army pick it up or would it be lowered for the marines? The latter would be unacceptable!

Response by SSG James N. made Mar 18 at 2015 7:27 PM

SSG James N. — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 19:27:37 -0400

Please allow me to go back to 1982 when I went to Marine Boot Camp where I learned how to address this properly:

NO! You grabastic maggot infested crab eating bilge drinking maggot! Did the best part of you run down your mother's ass crack onto the wet spot that spawned your Naval ass?

Ahhh, much better.

Now to address this foolish question...

It takes 13 weeks of hellish training to earn the title Marine. Compare this to the Army's 8 week program to make a civilian turn into a Soldier. As military training schools that both Marines and Army attend, we see that the Soldiers are still under Drill control, while the way better disciplined Marine is on his own merit from wake up to end of day.
The Soldier goes through life surviving things. The Marine, on the other hand, finds himself Improvising, Adapting, and Overcoming all obstacles that come his way.
Then we have the personal standard. As I have witnessed in both services, the Army allows a most piggish standard of overweight individuality, and barley presentable uniform wear. The Marine looks most impressive in his physical fit body that also allows a most impressive presentation in Dress Blues, which we find is also very conducive to dropping panties.
Should the Army and Marines combine? Go back to your bilge water Sailor, because you have lost your mind.

If you can see me laughing right now, you may be ok. If you find extreme insult in my words, you only make me laugh even harder due to your thinskinned nature.

Response by Sgt John Howell made Mar 18 at 2015 7:29 PM

Sgt John Howell — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 19:29:00 -0400

When I read the Army Officer concepts they all seem to miss one thing. It is called combined arms and that is where the Marines are totally different than the Army. A Marine MAGTF (AIR< GROUND, get it both air and ground combat operations) in one stop shop. A army officer would be totally lost in a marine unit and is not specialized enough to understand how marines fight and think. If anybody needs to change it is the Army and that was proven in the gulf wars and that fact the Marines were always able to do more with less. It is a mindset and a concept that is taught and engrained in the Marine warfighter. You also cannot say enough about the Marines warrior culture and cult like environment. They embodied the Spartan warrior concept unlike the armys touchy feely be all you can bee concept. Marines are trained and cultured to be warriors and very aggressive in doctrine and in nature. When shit gets real bad.....my choice is the Marine MAGTF on any day. Sorry army your culture as a whole is very pussified and go with the flow.

Response by Sgt Vince P made Mar 18 at 2015 7:37 PM

Sgt Vince P — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 19:37:15 -0400

Well as a Marine myself, just my two-cents worth. Was assigned to a small Marine Detachment (150+/-)of Marines enlisted & officers combined. Just a few of our unit (non of us COMBAT MOS) were asked to participate in a war game exercise with an Active duty and reserve unit combined. Well needless to say, the small force (15) non-combat MOS Marines defeated an entire Army unit. So as a Marine, don't think much of Army training and discipline, if any consolidation would agree with SSgt Estanislado Quinones USMC.

Any questions?

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made Mar 18 at 2015 7:42 PM

LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 19:42:11 -0400

I would say that if you were going to consolidate, then the forces would reshape to look like this:

Navy: all ships and water craft
Army: all ground troops
Air Force: all aircraft and missiles
Marines: all specops troops.

The problem is that sea going troops have unique skills that land based folks don't. Re pilots, it doesn't matter how good a Blackhawk pilot is, if s/he doesn't know how to land on a DD or CGC. It doesn't matter how good an F15/16/22/whatever pilot is if not Carrier qualified, or Harrier pilot if not Big Deck V/Stol qualified.

Further, there would be provincialism which would result in some things being improperly funded. Imagine, Army folks, if you had to go to the Navy to use a watercraft - something you have more of than Navy. The list of pitfalls is endless.

Smaller countries can have more streamlined forces, but because of specialized mobility needs, the roles of soldiers and marines will never be the same, the role of Navy vs AF vs Army vs Marine vs CG pilots will never be the same, etc.

I suspect this would be a non-starter...

Response by LCpl Charles Roseberry made Mar 18 at 2015 7:42 PM

LCpl Charles Roseberry — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 19:42:45 -0400

No, they serve completely different purposes, whomever brought this up, ONCE AGAIN, join the Marines, you will quickly see the difference. Semper Fi

Response by Sgt Omar Galindo made Mar 18 at 2015 7:48 PM

Sgt Omar Galindo — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 19:48:09 -0400

HELL NO!!!

Response by SFC Walter Mack made Mar 18 at 2015 7:51 PM

SFC Walter Mack — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 19:51:16 -0400

As a former Infantry Marine, and a current Soldier with over 18 years of combined service, I feel qualified to speak on this.

I have worked hard over the years to brand myself. I am Walter Mack! I don't need any accomplishment or title to make me awesome. I am awesome because I do awesome things!

If you need any title, be it Marine, Cav Scout, Infantryman, COL, SGM, GySgt, Ranger, SF, etc..., than you need to reevaluate your own value to the team. My accomplishments are my own, and I know what I've done.

Can we consolidate the services? Sure. Would it fix anything? Nope. Our military bureaucracy would only find a way to create more frustrating bull crap in order to maintain a lost sense of identity. It doesn't matter how you reframe us, it's better to leave well enough alone and look at other ways to eliminate redundancy. Once we've proven that we can make steps forward in eliminating fraud, waste & abuse, then we can look at a consolidation.

Truthfully, we could consolidate all services if we were serious about it. Why can't Navy personnel serve time on Coast Guard ships, & vice versa? They have a similar mission, and the diversity would only serve to expand their skillset. Infantry Soldiers and Marines could mentor each other's leadership skills and abilities. Most MOS's aren't that different. We could put Soldier medics on a ship, and corpsmen in an Army hospital. Many training bases already train multiple services.

The only reason we have separate services is to maintain separate identities. What I don't understand is why we are so beholden to an identity of service affiliation that we are unable to develop our own. Be you and do work. If everyone came to work every day and did their job, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Response by Cpl Justin Sowell made Mar 18 at 2015 8:04 PM

Cpl Justin Sowell — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 20:04:47 -0400

Aside from combat deployments Marines have a different purpose in life. As much as I hated the 13th MEU the MEU is what makes the Marine Corps unique. It acts as the worlds 911 force as well as putting a small scale military with everything from infantry, tanks, helicopters, fighter/bombers, and artillery. Marines are Marines because of this. Otherwise we'd just be soldiers.

Response by PO2 Dale Gneiting made Mar 18 at 2015 8:06 PM

PO2 Dale Gneiting — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 20:06:13 -0400

No, when I was at NAS JRB New Orleans I saw both working individual units USMC and USAF and there is just too many differences in policy's and procedures for that to work.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2015 8:10 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 20:10:57 -0400

The Marines don't have any medical assets, and not sure we'll have enough. What's NAVMED going to do, float around the South Pacific on frigates?

Response by SFC Kenneth Hunnell made Mar 18 at 2015 8:15 PM

SFC Kenneth Hunnell — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 20:15:34 -0400

No, you should not try to fix something that is not broken. When the S#$t hits the fan we are one at the point that is needed

Response by Sgt Gabriel Falcon made Mar 18 at 2015 8:16 PM

Sgt Gabriel Falcon — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 20:16:08 -0400

I think regardless of what happens. The Marines will be Marines. Whether being Dept of the Navy or Department of the Army. If it was Army it would just be Department of the Army, United States Marine Corps just as it currently is Department of the Navy, United States Marine Corps. The Corps is the Corps regardless of what department it falls ever under. Pretty sure there will still be the same indoctrination and traditions that occurs now. I think what some fail to realize is that Marines are a "specialty force" meant for beach landings as it was stood up back in 1775 to protect ships. Yes, we are in a different day and age, but regardless of how you look at it and whom might get butthurt over this; the Marines are Soldiers of the Sea. We still serve the same purpose as a light strike force, we get in and get out. The Army is an occupying force. But I tell you what, the Army will never have the greatness which is the MAGTF. Hell, we are a air, land and sea force.

Response by Sgt Shawn Hight made Mar 18 at 2015 8:21 PM

Sgt Shawn Hight — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 20:21:34 -0400

To be simple it is a ridiculous question. Just call it the U.S. Military by that logic. The branches are specialized because of the passage of time and the needs of our country. Thumbs down and one finger up I'll let everyone guess which one it is.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2015 8:31 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 20:31:06 -0400

I don't think the Army and Marines should integrate because their mission is differrent. the Marine Corps is designed to be a quick mobile unit that can react to anything within 48 to 72 hrs where as the army is designed as an occupation force, that why the Army is larger than the marine corp. the force stucture is also different, there is a reason why the Marines are called the 911 force of the U.S. and the Army is not.

Response by LCpl Randall Cole made Mar 18 at 2015 8:41 PM

LCpl Randall Cole — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 20:41:26 -0400

Who came up with this question, it definitely was not a Marine. Not only is that a no!!!! Its a Hell No!!!! Were a sea service by nature and tradition. True many capabilities overlap between the too but us Marines would rather die a painful death at Throumopili and fade off into legend rather than have that happen. I got nothing against the Army, my fathers retired Army and was 82nd his first four years in. But I didnt join the Army I joined the Marines and as a Grunt. Whoever posted this question needs throat punched lol. Semper Fi

Response by COL Rich McKinney made Mar 18 at 2015 8:47 PM

COL Rich McKinney — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 20:47:07 -0400

Every 4 years at the Quadrennial briefing to congress someone asks that. The classical answer is the USMC's core competency is amphibious operations. When the Navy designed USS America without a well deck I said that next Quad they are going to have trouble justifying the Corps existence.

Response by Cpl Bill McPherson made Mar 18 at 2015 8:50 PM

Cpl Bill McPherson — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 20:50:50 -0400

No... Marines are used in a different capacity than the Army. They are trained for a different mission. They are intended to be a shock force. Leadership is different in the Corps. Marine rifle squads and line companies are organized different from the Army's. But aside from those few and many other reasons to consider lets realize that the organization of our military follows after an American tradition of decentralized command and control. Many will argue that the 21st century requires more centralization. I would say the continued growth of centralized power is not such a good thing. Combining forces would simply be a reflection of this trend and would only serve to hinder mission specific diversification. Most other nations understand this and therefore have separate military institutions for a variety of mission capabilities.

Response by Cpl Michael Cihak made Mar 18 at 2015 8:51 PM

Cpl Michael Cihak — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 20:51:00 -0400

Absolutely NOT, different missions , completely different training from day one, and last I heard the Corps fell under the Navy s umbrella, did I miss something ? was there a memo ?

Response by COL Charles Williams made Mar 18 at 2015 8:51 PM

COL Charles Williams — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 20:51:36 -0400

Yes, the Marines have become the Army. Marine will hate it... but...

They have adapted and now serve many of the functions the Army does. Many of our allies have all branches combined. The navy does need naval infantry as originally constituted, but do we need 3 Marine Divisions, and better yet 3 Marine Air Wings? The Navy can do the latter. Marines are good at adapting and morphing, much better in fact than we are.. but in places like Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Desert Storm, Somalia, OIF, OEF, did we really need Marines? The Marines essentially were conducting Army Missions.

(1) The Army’s mission is to fight and win our Nation’s wars by providing prompt, sustained land dominance across the full range of military operations and spectrum of conflict in support of combatant commanders. We do this by:

- Executing Title 10 and Title 32 United States Code directives, to include organizing, equipping, and training forces for the conduct of prompt and sustained combat operations on land.
Accomplishing missions assigned by the President, Secretary of Defense and combatant commanders, and Transforming for the future.

(2) The Marine Mission is not so clear if you look...

(There Web Site) The Marine Corps has been America's expeditionary force in readiness since 1775. We are forward deployed to respond swiftly and aggressively in times of crisis. We are soldiers of the sea, providing forces and detachments to naval ships and shore operations. We are global leaders, developing expeditionary doctrine and innovations that set the example, and leading other countries' forces and agencies in multinational military operations. These unique capabilities make us "First to Fight," and our nation's first line of defense.

(USC) The USMC serves as an expeditionary force-in-readiness. As outlined in 10 U.S.C. § 5063 and as originally introduced under the National Security Act of 1947, it has three primary areas of responsibility:

- The seizure or defense of advanced naval bases and other land operations to support naval campaigns;
- The development of tactics, technique, and equipment used by amphibious landing forces in coordination with the Army and Air Force; and
- Such other duties as the President may direct.

Response by SFC Olivero Rodriguez made Mar 18 at 2015 9:09 PM

SFC Olivero Rodriguez — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:09:45 -0400

I did 20 years in the Army, I am very proud of the uniform I wear, now working at the PX in Ft. Jackson SC. I get very discourage with the soldiers that enter the facility and those I see walking around. From officers to NCO's and privates, they have no respect for the uniform, they have no respect for the playing of the national anthem, reveille and or retreat. Some see me standing getting ready to pay my respect and they just keep on walking to their cars. This is the new Army, I am the Army, but my respect on this view goes to the Marines. As a former Drill Instructor, it piss me off to see these soldiers doing that. Be all you can be. or get out of my Army.

Response by SPC Steven Garcia made Mar 18 at 2015 9:18 PM

SPC Steven Garcia — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:18:24 -0400

I say leave well enough alone. I respect all of the branches. That includes the National Guard and the Reserves.

Response by Sgt James Sheffield made Mar 18 at 2015 9:26 PM

Sgt James Sheffield — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:26:31 -0400

No. Marines are amphibious specialists. The Army, not so much. They may appear similar to the untrained eye but they serve different purposes.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2015 9:26 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:26:43 -0400

So much emotions in this thread. Simply put, we all bring something different to the table and combining forces plausible, however, members would react with emotion rather than cost-benefit.

Response by SgtMaj James Kuiken made Mar 18 at 2015 9:31 PM

SgtMaj James Kuiken — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:31:06 -0400

Absolutely not. Different missions, different training, different cultures. That's like trying to merge horses and zebras together because they appear to be somewhat similar.

Response by SPC K Webb made Mar 18 at 2015 9:31 PM

SPC K Webb — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:31:56 -0400

Unless the Army is going to raise their standards, no.

Response by MSgt Gordon Nielsen made Mar 18 at 2015 9:33 PM

MSgt Gordon Nielsen — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:33:59 -0400

The United States Marine Corps has shown throughout its history that fight in every climb and place. It is a unique part of the military that can respond on short notice and maintain its self-sustaining combat operations on the land, at sea and in the air.

Gordon D. Nielsen
MSgt. USMC (Ret.) 1972-1996

Response by SSgt Al Dutton made Mar 18 at 2015 9:47 PM

SSgt Al Dutton — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:47:58 -0400

The Army would have to grow bigger Balls. I've been in both the ARMY (101st Abn Div) and the Marine Corps. We Marines are far tougher than any ARMY unit other than The Airborne Divisions. Get RID of the AIR FARCE, they can become Space Command, while all their assets can become MARINE assets, especially the Awesome A-10! Our Pilots know how to fly Ground Support Missions, the Air Farce think 10,000 feet is too low! I remember in Vietnam when our Marines came in so low to support us that we could SMELL the burning jet fuel as they passed overhead to drop Napalm on Obama's yellow brothers!

Response by MSG William Wold made Mar 18 at 2015 9:59 PM

MSG William Wold — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:59:16 -0400

No, just no. I've been threw so many changes and back. Glad I'm retired.
Like why does Army have boats, Navy planes, on and on. Seems we get political "managers" as Dept of Defense" and other high ranking civilians that don't have a clue how complex the infrastructures and doctrine is of each branch. And needs to be left alone.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2015 10:41 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 22:41:13 -0400

How about no Scott.

Response by Sgt John Taylor made Mar 18 at 2015 10:50 PM

Sgt John Taylor — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 22:50:47 -0400

Hell NO!!! I earned my Eagle, Globe and Anchor and there is no way in hell I would dishonor the title of Marine by mixing it with the lowering standard of what is a soldier. I have family that are soldiers and I love and respect them as I do all soldiers but there is an extremely large difference in the process of becoming a Marine and that is a title that I have bled for and even though I am retired I would be crushed as would all Marines if they had to basically, for lack of a better word, surrender their EGA and be enter mingled with what we consider a lower standard of training. The Army has earned every right to be called a soldier and every Marine has earned the title of United States Marine, to be called something that we are not, to me, is considered blasphemy. We are a department of the Navy and even they wouldn't take that from us. I am not attempting to disrespect any Army, Air Force, Coast Guard or Navy personnel, this is just my personal perspective and is in no way reflected upon the Marine Corps. Everyone fights with all their heart to earn the title of their respective branch of service and that should never be taken away from anyone, I pray for every Marine that this doesn't happen. May God Bless all the Marine out there, Semper Fi!!!

Response by COL Jon Thompson made Mar 18 at 2015 10:54 PM

COL Jon Thompson — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 22:54:50 -0400

Putting aside the reality that this would never happen, you can make an argument for consolidating them into one land warfare force. There clearly is an overlap of missions. The Army did the largest amphibious invasion in history so that clearly is not just a job Marines can do. The Army Airborne forces can deploy anywhere as fast if not faster than Marines. Much of the equipment is the same. In terms of organization, it would reduce a lot of staff in the Pentagon and I would bet save money down the road. Again, this will never happen so this is purely a theoretical discussion.

Response by LCpl Christopher Johnson made Mar 18 at 2015 11:01 PM

LCpl Christopher Johnson — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 23:01:20 -0400

Response by SPC David Bosquez made Mar 18 at 2015 11:01 PM

SPC David Bosquez — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 23:01:36 -0400

I have to say that with a lot of the posts being from strength management side of consolidation, and the fighting force nearly being the same, that might work. But having a Marine stepfather for many years and also friends who joined the Marine Corps around the time I enlisted in the Army, consolidating would do nothing more than hurt morale for both sides of of the consolidation. Marines are very proud of their eagle, globe and anchor, and the moment a Soldier dons that beret for the first time, there is a huge swelling of pride for yourself and what you have accomplished as well. You take that pride away and you'll lose most of what made that Marine or Soldier who they were. After all, what does a warrior have if not their pride?

Response by MSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2015 11:20 PM

MSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 23:20:24 -0400

Not just no. But hell no. Their missions and concept of operations are so completely different. Their training methods and missions are vastly different as is their OPTEMPO and motivations. The Marines have their job and they do it extremely well. As does the Army. Leave they be. If it isn't broke, don't fix it!!

Response by SPC Matthew Morris made Mar 18 at 2015 11:33 PM

SPC Matthew Morris — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 23:33:17 -0400

Objectively, yes, I think the USMC and Army could combine. I would not get rid of the "Marines" however. If the Marines became a specialized unit with specialized training (exactly what they are already), it would not hurt the image or specialization of the Marines. Think going out for Marines instead of Airborne. Not only that, money would be saved because specialization is not necessary in the non-infantry jobs. Tankers are still tankers, artillery is still artillery, commo is still commo, etc.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2015 11:42 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 23:42:08 -0400

From a logical stand point absolutely not. The army would see mission creep on an unprecedented scale. Take the Marine Corps from an idea of soldiers of the sea a quickly deploying expeditionary force. The Corps has limited man power which dictates a limited (yet often times heavy handed) response to threats. Often when marine commanders ask for more, they get told there is nothing more to send, I have witnessed this first hand. If the army integrated the magtf into the fold and the missions it accepts how often would a limited operation get drawn into a full scale conflict. It is good to have a Corps that can give a military response without committing the full force of the U.S. military.

Response by 1SG William Svoboda made Mar 18 at 2015 11:56 PM

1SG William Svoboda — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 23:56:22 -0400

Ok, let's put aside our individual service traditions and pride for a moment and realize the fact that we are ground warriors that can be one ground force easily. As well as all air assets can be one air force and all sea assets can b ed one sea force. We have separate missions because we were GIVEN seperate missions. Unique service speak and principles of leadership implementation are all that divide us except for the traditions. Conveniently forces must adapt to survive and the facts are my Marine brothers is that there is a ceiling for end strength which is the foundation for the Few, etc motto. We are warriors and we can succeed in any environment under any circumstances TOGETHER!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2015 11:57 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 23:57:51 -0400

I could see them both falling under the same command. But both branches have too much history to do away with either.

Response by CW2 Scott Quaife made Mar 19 at 2015 12:05 AM

CW2 Scott Quaife — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 00:05:57 -0400

leave this one alone. I have seen , Read, been apart of changes while in the Army. Sorry, the Marines have their agenda, the Army it's own. Next question.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2015 12:23 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 00:23:55 -0400

All pride/personal/emotional considerations aside, the U.S. does not need a Marine Corps. Most countries don't have one for a reason. The land assets could be absorbed into the Army, the air into the Navy/Air Force, and the amphibious role could go to the Army/Navy. The "lessen bureaucracy" argument doesn't hold water because the bigger the bureaucracy is the less efficient it is, so getting rid of the USMC, but increasing the size of the bureaucracies in the other services would actually make them worse.

The real argument for keeping the USMC is compelling, and why we'd hurt ourselves to get rid of it: the MAGTF. The Marine Air-Ground Task Force is a doctrinally exercised unit that has no parallel in any other branch. The MAGTF is a complete, self-contained warfighting unit. As the name implies, it has the ground and air (and usually naval, if required [and yes, they're provided by the Navy, but the Navy's amphibious ships only exist to be used by the USMC]) forces to conduct a small-scale armed conflict all by itself. A MAGTF can stand up quickly, be anywhere, and the bringing the pain in a timeline that is vastly shorter than the other services could put together. The air component can get air superiority and/or begin conducting strikes faster than the Air Force (though not necessarily do it better), clearing the way for ground forces either by land, amphibiously or by air mobility. This is practiced regularly and in fact we keep deploying Marine Expeditionary Units (MEUs) multiple times per year, just to project our power and to keep up practice on deploying MAGTFs.

An aircraft carrier sitting of your coast is a hell of a way to say, "we will blow up your shit." A MEU sitting off your coast instead says, "we will come into your home, drag you out by your hair, and kick your ass into an undisclosed prison." And that's the best outcome.

In closing, the Marine Corps will take something that needs taken, but it's not as good as the Army at holding it. It's truly America's 911 force.

Response by SPC Reginald Galanto made Mar 19 at 2015 12:30 AM

SPC Reginald Galanto — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 00:30:35 -0400

If anything the only one that should consolidate should be combat personnel. Like scouts, rangers and infantry personnel. Other parts of the army and marines should stay separate.

Response by 1SG Tim Gunst made Mar 19 at 2015 12:33 AM

1SG Tim Gunst — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 00:33:39 -0400

I do find it insulting when some on here say the marines have a higher standard and more pride then the Army. Because that is BS and just plain wrong on so many levels. I'm not going to sit here and say one is better then the other. To answer the question I say no to combine them. We are two totally different branches with totally different mind set. I respect all branches of our great military forces and will not insult them by saying the Army is the better branch of our armed forces. I am proud to have served with every branch out there. I know everybody has their own opinion and they are entitled to have one. I'm just happy that the US of A has the best military forces in the world by far.

Response by Cpl Jonathon Letner made Mar 19 at 2015 12:36 AM

Cpl Jonathon Letner — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 00:36:22 -0400

No cause our training is completely different you would have to lower the standards of the marines or raise the standards of the army it wouldn't work

Response by SFC Boots Attaway made Mar 19 at 2015 12:45 AM

SFC Boots Attaway — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 00:45:44 -0400

No they should not. Although they both have basically the same role in combat their peace time missions are very different. The Corps is a smaller entity that is part of the navy and are deployed assault ships and other naval vessels. Whereas the Army is land based with post around the world. The Corps is responsible for our the security of our embassy's and attacking/securing coastal areas. The Army's main responsibility is national security and ground offences along with airborne operations. Leave it all well enough alone.

Response by CW2 Scott Quaife made Mar 19 at 2015 1:15 AM

CW2 Scott Quaife — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 01:15:14 -0400

The more I read the responses I am taken back to WW II, Normandy. Head scratcher here, but the Army stormed the beach, not quite the Army's job description. However, leave force structure alone.

Response by Cpl Israel Guzman made Mar 19 at 2015 1:42 AM

Cpl Israel Guzman — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 01:42:28 -0400

No, merging the USAF and USN would make more sense since they are more technologically based services. The USAF operates and maintains highly technical machines that fly or orbit and, the USN, highly technical machines that float or submerse. It would be much more logical to join these two services that rely on technical expertise and knowledge. Keep the Army a large, powerful occupying force and the USMC a highly-skilled quick-strike force.

Response by LCpl Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2015 1:54 AM

LCpl Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 01:54:40 -0400

Response by 1LT David Moeglein made Mar 19 at 2015 1:57 AM

1LT David Moeglein — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 01:57:59 -0400

I have ambivalent feelings about joining the two forces. As an army officer, I say that I am in favor of this, because it will make the Army-Navy Game more competitive. However, as a warrior I prefer them separate. Iron sharpens iron, and I would miss the friendly banter that goes back and forth.

Response by Sgt Larry Gordon made Mar 19 at 2015 2:11 AM

Sgt Larry Gordon — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 02:11:56 -0400

HECK NO! Nothing against the Army, but that would take away from being either. I'm proud to be a Marine and the crap I went through to be one would lose meaning. Marines are marines for a reason. Forget tradition, we are different. Somethings wrong with us, and it's a good thing there is. You can't be a Marine without there being so. That being said, I give much respect to the Army, but everyone can't be a Marine.

Response by SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2015 2:16 AM

SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 02:16:18 -0400

No, they should not.

Response by LCpl Ralph Salazar made Mar 19 at 2015 2:16 AM

LCpl Ralph Salazar — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 02:16:39 -0400

No. It all comes down to money, not to jab the Army, but it can not do what the Marine Corps does at the cost the Marines do it at. One would say that with the Army being the larger and more funded branch they would take on the Corps, and not the other way around. With that in mind the cost of running the Corps the Army way will be costly to the point of wasting more money than a merger would save.

Response by LCpl Lucas Lytle made Mar 19 at 2015 2:32 AM

LCpl Lucas Lytle — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 02:32:13 -0400

NO!!! The Army is great at what they do and the Marines are great at what they do... Leave them seperate !!!!

Response by GySgt David Hastings made Mar 19 at 2015 2:50 AM

GySgt David Hastings — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 02:50:08 -0400

Absolutely not!!

Response by PO1 Rick Serviss made Mar 19 at 2015 4:57 AM

PO1 Rick Serviss — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 04:57:04 -0400

No they shouldn't. I don't think the question is offensive. It's interesting. One main difference is that the Marines are transported to their destination by a Navy ship which gives another element of surprise to the enemy and making them more mobile than the Army.

Response by SSG Peter Muse made Mar 19 at 2015 5:09 AM

SSG Peter Muse — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 05:09:06 -0400

As I look through the thread it's obvious that the high majority of responses are driven by emotion and past experience. After being a soldier , Army civilian and now Navy civilian I am often called on to create cost saving courses of action by higher HQs, I have to ask the question as a staffer would see it: If we were faced with cuts that forced us to consolidate, what would you recommend as VIABLE courses of action to consider? My answer might be; consolidate equipment platforms, joint basing, increase interoperability and training platforms. Keep uniforms, training doctrine, COC, rank structure and service hierarchy separate. USMC remains USMC, commanded by USMC as a branch Under US Army as opposed to US Navy. There are positive possibilities and there will be points to consider such as those involving the already structured relationship with the Navy. Marines are currently DON. When a staffer is asked, emotions must be put aside and the responses must be functional. Currently there are monies spent that should be consolidated (IMHO) for vehicles, weapons and other systems. What do you think?

Response by SPC Chris Breaux made Mar 19 at 2015 5:38 AM

SPC Chris Breaux — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 05:38:55 -0400

I'm ex army, and I understand the difference between the army and the marines. They are primarily an amphibious force. Just because they may not need them now doesn't mean they won't be needed in the future. Kinda like the airborne. When is the last time they really NEEDED to jump out of a plane? But we still keep them around

Response by CPL Howard Conover made Mar 19 at 2015 7:13 AM

CPL Howard Conover — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 07:13:41 -0400

I feel it would be a good, progressive mover for our Military. In addition you can still maintain the "specialized" forces such as Berets, Rangers, Airborne, etc. and look to expand these units.

Response by SPC Kelly O'Reilly made Mar 19 at 2015 7:25 AM

SPC Kelly O'Reilly — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 07:25:25 -0400

No there is a huge difference between the two which draws the different people into each. I am solider and knew I wanted to serve in more of a main role i feel like navy and airforce support us and the marines. You just need both

Response by CSM Guy R. Niles made Mar 19 at 2015 7:28 AM

CSM Guy R. Niles — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 07:28:04 -0400

I would not. Aside from the similarities, these two sister services do have two distinct and separate missions. That is just my two cents as an old retired Army (Cavalry) CSM.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2015 7:34 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 07:34:08 -0400

the Marines are a unique group their training is superior why mess up a great thing the few the proud the Marines let's keep it that way

Response by SSG Leevon Leggins II made Mar 19 at 2015 7:54 AM

SSG Leevon Leggins II — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 07:54:23 -0400

Looking through all of the responses to this thread the best respone is increasing cooperation between the two. The major problems that are incountered are not fully understanding each others true role and capabilities. Each branch respectfully wants to operate independently which is good depending on the task then allows the joint task to drasctically falter. We are both US service members and defend the same nation. Lets strive harder to work together and each other to get job done.

Response by SPC Phillip Spears made Mar 19 at 2015 7:57 AM

SPC Phillip Spears — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 07:57:30 -0400

Marines and soldiers are brothers in combat and garrison. We are not twins though. The army takes an act of war / congress to be deployed; marines though can act off presidential orders without congressional approval. To force one to change to the other, tactically, is like cutting off your left arm. The in fighting and competition between branches helps soldiers i believe. 'Why those jarheads always blah blah" "why those dumb grunts so dumb" blah blah, competition breeds excellence...remove anyone of the 'jenga' pieces and who knoes how fast or much it could effect everything.....its worked this way for over 200years why fix whats not broke?!

Response by Cpl Ross Noble made Mar 19 at 2015 8:12 AM

Cpl Ross Noble — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 08:12:19 -0400

CPL Noble: This is the dumbest most ignorant question I have heard in a long time. Marines are a breed apart, Semper Fi!

Response by GySgt David Andrews made Mar 19 at 2015 8:14 AM

GySgt David Andrews — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 08:14:17 -0400

No. I served in both and there are very big differences between the two and both have completely different mind sets and missions.

Response by CPT Michael Saubert made Mar 19 at 2015 8:22 AM

CPT Michael Saubert — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 08:22:52 -0400

The answer to that would be no. Different ethos, different mission, different heuristics.
Have a great day!

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2015 8:23 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 08:23:35 -0400

Truthfully, I think the whole military should consolidate. It would cut down on costs and make the decision easier for civilians wanting to join. Since all of the branches have pretty much all of the same jobs available I think it would be more simple if we all served under the same name and in the same uniform.

Response by SGT KellyAnn Piergiorgi made Mar 19 at 2015 8:27 AM

SGT KellyAnn Piergiorgi — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 08:27:21 -0400

I am double sided on this one. One half of me yes, the other no. The Marines are an elite group and has special training only the Marines can give as does the Army. But, they are both trained to do the same thing, Fight Wars!. So, It doesn't really matter which uniform you put one. One the battlefield we are all the same, we are one.

Response by GySgt Rick Lanman made Mar 19 at 2015 8:27 AM

GySgt Rick Lanman — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 08:27:48 -0400

There used to be a separation of missions. Marines do amphibious warfare then the Army takes the fight from there. Marines can sustain combat but that really isn't the overreaching mission. Likewise with "special" forces. These days every branch has an elite corps and they all do the same thing. I like competition but that one seems more like an Army mission. So what does the Air Force need with "special" forces? And why are Seals deep in the heart of a dessert conducting ground warfare? I say let's get back to what each branch was created for and do that very well. Stay within the mission.

Response by PVT William Bresch made Mar 19 at 2015 8:38 AM

PVT William Bresch — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 08:38:28 -0400

I wouldn't, better to be safe then sorry.

Response by Pvt Wendy Cosby made Mar 19 at 2015 9:01 AM

Pvt Wendy Cosby — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 09:01:05 -0400

When I signed up for the Marines at the tender age of 17, my father did not want his daughter to join the military at all, much less the Marines. My father was career Air Force, one of my grandfathers was Army, the other was Army Air Corps and went to the Air Force when they split. My mother was Naval Reserve and my brother was Army reserve, Navy, and finally got it right and went Marine. When my father asked me why the Marines my reply was simple, if not what he wanted to hear. I told him "I have already been a girl scout, so the Air Force and Navy hold no appeal, and everybody and their brother goes in the Army. I want a challenge and something I can be proud of". I became a Marine. There is a pride that being a Marine entitles you to. I don't know what the standard is now but when I went in, you could go from the Marines to any other branch and not have to go through their basic training, but no matter what other branch you had been in, you still had to go through Marine Corps basic to become a Marine. There is a reason for that and to insinuate that the Marines and the Army can so easily merge their identities is ludicrous. I understand you want to no tacticly and logically without personal feelings whether it is a good decision. I say you will never be able to take the feelings out of the equation. We Marines are a stubborn and proud bunch and did not sign up for the Army life. I would absolutely hate to see my beloved Corps become just another offshoot of the Army.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2015 9:05 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 09:05:09 -0400

Having served in both the Marines (4yrs) and Army (8 1/2) I have to say that the two should not be combined. The Corp teaches history, traditions, self discipline, self reliance and the Army glosses over everything and teaches that you overwhelm with numbers and tech. They handle people and situations in different ways and sometimes both are needed but if you combine them they Army way of training will take over and something that our country needs will be lost.

Response by SSG Mike Rose made Mar 19 at 2015 9:06 AM

SSG Mike Rose — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 09:06:26 -0400

Here my thoughts.
Marines started as the navy ground force right? Do they need one still? Also army has
there own air so I guess merging all brunches to one armed forces would save money and logisics.

Response by MSgt Eric Viebrock made Mar 19 at 2015 9:07 AM

MSgt Eric Viebrock — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 09:07:12 -0400

No. Absolutely not. The Army and the Marine Corps should not consolidate. I cannot put traditions and history aside. Our history is what makes the Marine Corps and the Army what they are. The Army is a fine fighting force. I served along side them in the first gulf war and we had a Stryker brigade attached to my regiment during my year in Iraq. The Army acquitted itself in spectacular fashion. However, I just cannot conceive that or support it. There are just too many differences between us for all those individuals to accept. While a consolidation would be more economically practical and probably save tons of money there are things more important than money. The pride that comes with saying your a "Marine" or a "Soldier" is not something I would be willing to give up. A consolidation would just be throwing away centuries of history and traditions for the sake of saving money. You also need to consider other things like what would we call that force? what would the uniforms look like? What about ribbons and badges? schools? recruit training? etc. Doctrine would also have to change from the ground up. The Marine Corps is a small amphibious attack force while the Army is more of a larger land occupation force.

I can recall when I was a Drill Instructor on Parris Island that bus loads of Army Drill Sergeants would periodically visit and observe us training recruits because the Marine Corps keeps male and female recruits separate. There is no co-ed recruit training in the Corps.

Keep the Army and the Marine Corps as they are.

My two cents....

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2015 9:13 AM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 09:13:54 -0400

No. The Marines have too much pride. Something soldiers do not have. If this happens, alot of service members will EAS. It will be a breach of contract.

Response by COL David S. made Mar 19 at 2015 9:14 AM

COL David S. — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 09:14:19 -0400

No. They have a different job description than the Army. I will say, however, that all uniform services should report to one commander....the United States should have one command...not the various services "protecting" their own. Even in the "new" joint operations concept this has occurred. Not good.

Response by Cpl Christopher Mullins made Mar 19 at 2015 9:21 AM

Cpl Christopher Mullins — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 09:21:17 -0400

Never. They have two different purposes.

Response by SGT Jacob Graves made Mar 19 at 2015 9:27 AM

SGT Jacob Graves — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 09:27:55 -0400

What? Get real there is no way you can expect the army to step up to the Marines level. Hell the army can't even control it's self.if you want a merge go back to the Army Air Corp you're all ready half way there with the merger of all army and Air Force bases close together. The Marines need to remain their own entity just because no one can life up to their standards properly.

Response by GySgt CeCe Carter made Mar 19 at 2015 9:33 AM

GySgt CeCe Carter — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 09:33:08 -0400

No, the few and the proud earned the Eagle, Globe and Anchor.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2015 9:49 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 09:49:33 -0400

Interesting question, but my answer is no. The Marine Corps has a specific mission that is tied to it's parent branch, the US Navy. It is an amphibious assault force that has been allowed to mission creep into Army territory. The US Army is the oldest service branch tasked with winning America's land wars, period. Each service does it's mission well. If anything, the Marine Corps should be reigned in to more expertly focus on it's specialty.

I have nothing but respect for all those who have earned the title of US Marine, but I am proud to be a United States Soldier. This we'll defend!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2015 9:50 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 09:50:05 -0400

If you look at it from a financial viewpoint it would make sense since after all for the most part the marines in recent times have adapted pretty much the same equipment as the army. Also the Marines are supportedby the army after 30 days after a landing or insertion since the navy is not structured to support them for more than 30 days. Now all the marine supporters will argue that all the tradutons and honors that are bestowed to their long history will be lost but if done right they can be preserved as well

Response by Sgt Jeff Howards made Mar 19 at 2015 9:50 AM

Sgt Jeff Howards — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 09:50:43 -0400

Having served as an NCO in the Marines and an Officer in the Army I say absolutely not! The traditions, motivation, and Esprit de Corps demonstrated daily by the Marines are unmatched by any other fighting force. Semper Fi, Mac!

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made Mar 19 at 2015 10:00 AM

SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 10:00:40 -0400

As a Vet .. I don't think this is a good idea.
Marines are Marines and Soldiers are Soldiers.

However...
I have found that Marines and Paratroopers do have something in common ...
They both want to be Paratroopers...

Response by SSgt Christophe Murphy made Mar 19 at 2015 10:32 AM

SSgt Christophe Murphy — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 10:32:43 -0400

Seriously with this question? Short answer is no. Both branches have their respective role and mission. If you understand those roles it is pretty easy to understand how ridiculous this question truly is.

Here is the long answer.
Every 15 years or so some smart guy comes around thinking he solved a financial crisis by combining a branch or two. We have five with very defined roles and goals. President Truman once tried to absorb the Marine Corps into the Army during the Korean War. What he received were boxes full of awards earned for valor by legions of Marines who were fighting on the front lines while the Commander in Chief tried to make them Army who disagreed with his reasoning.

In summary you have two fighting forces that have two different missions. The Marine Corps is light, fast and hard hitting. Meant to go in first blow a hole in the defenses and make as much destruction as they can while the main force comes in behind them.

The main force being the much larger Army. They represent the traditional large fighting force. You could say they are slightly slower but this is due to their massive size and power.

We have a good thing going. Just leave it be. The modern day American Military is a product of years of strategy and planning. We didn't just end up with it. We designed it this way.

Response by Pvt Bill Oneilkl made Mar 19 at 2015 10:36 AM

Pvt Bill Oneilkl — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 10:36:38 -0400

Response by 1SG Michael Blount made Mar 19 at 2015 10:52 AM

1SG Michael Blount — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 10:52:09 -0400

I'm for anything that reduces a bureaucracy that smothers innovation and makes us a faster, more mobile and agile force that can strike hard at a moment's notice. Oh, and we can call the new organization United States Ground Forces.

Response by Cpl Don "GUNNY" Miller made Mar 19 at 2015 11:10 AM

Cpl Don "GUNNY" Miller — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 11:10:33 -0400

N.F.W.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2015 11:31 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 11:31:52 -0400

No.

It would mean going through a vast waste of money to do the consolidation. It would have little to zero benefit added. It would be a nightmare of reorganization. It would really mean dropping the size of the Marine Corps down to a minuscule size i.e. prior to WWI, and then sticking the rest in an Army uniform. It would cause unnecessary demoralization of a proud combat force, and create a mass exodus of service members who already have the amphibious mission set expertise.

What they should do is consolidate some of the officer, NCO, and MOS training to share best practices, and create cross service espirit de corps and mutual respect. They should enact cross service Officer and Senior NCO postings in Battalion and Brigade staffs. They should enact some cross service postings of Senior NCO to the Company level. They should derive a uniform evaluation system for both NCOs and Officers. They should also further consolidate R&D and logistics. This would foster inner operability and expectations between the ground branches.

Response by MSgt Leonard Fletcher made Mar 19 at 2015 11:53 AM

MSgt Leonard Fletcher — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 11:53:40 -0400

BLUF: No. The Petty Officer who authored this question obviously decided to poke the proverbial bear so it must be that time of the year since it comes up every year in one or more of these forums. The U.S. Army is a force to be reckoned with for sure. There is no larger force with such an intense arsenal in the world. I do believe old dogs can be taught new tricks but when it gets down to brass tacks and you’re finally going out for the prize hog… you break out old proven faithful every single time.

I recall the first time I personally experienced this particular rumint in the early 1990’s that indicated a “merging of forces”. Although I look back and can see that was mainly because of nametapes being added to our uniforms when the reality of that rumint was that the communist news network (CNN) could not remember Marine’s surnames and were obviously incapable of knowing rank structure so to appease the media, Marines were obliged to wear the nametape in October 1993. I bring this up because the Army has attempted over the years to do small-scale amphibious warfare-type and expeditionary maneuvers that they are not bred to do. The words “small-scale” alone eliminates the Army’s attrition based mindset. Let’s take Army Special Force units 81st and 101st for example, since they are well known. To do any mission they have a pre-briefing that insinuates (sometimes even stating as a fact) that they expect a 10% casualty rate before any boots hit ground. Marines accept and anticipate a zero % casualty rate before, during and after any offensive. Those same Army units will also throw 300 to 3,000 soldiers out of planes at one time to go into a conflict when a squad or at most a platoon would suffice. Secondly, the mentality of small-unit leadership is oblivious to the Army and though it could be simulated, once the crap hits the fan, they will go to what they know and what they know flies in the face of reality; "Where there are two, one is in charge". That however is understood, accepted and ubiquitous throughout the ethos of the Corps.

The reality is this; Marines breed leaders, although not all Marines are leaders and that’s why those non-leaders are most often systematically weeded out or move on to other branches. The Army has the specialist direction because they don't require everyone to lead. I do not want the Marine Corps to absorb the Army which is what would happen vice the insinuated reverse, and I don’t believe the Army seriously wants to conform to our ways otherwise there wouldn't be so many of them that say, “oh, I could’ve been a Marine, but…”

Both Army and Marines are essential and separate. Their missions are different and the utility is different, diverse and both equally necessary.

Semper Fi!

Response by Cpl Joe Kraft made Mar 19 at 2015 12:03 PM

Cpl Joe Kraft — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 12:03:32 -0400

Marines are fundamentally designed for a different mission. The Army is more diverse and the two would have to change from Boot Camp, where everybody goes through the same one.
Not mention Marine Corps pride and Tradition!
I say no to consolidating!

Response by MSG Dan Foster made Mar 19 at 2015 12:09 PM

MSG Dan Foster — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 12:09:58 -0400

If it's not broke, don't fix it! Tradition and branch jabbing aside, each branch has a mission that sometimes brings them side by side on the battlefield. But, without gong into a lot of detail, the Corp is unique in the fact that they do deploy with the Navy and, in most cases, are able to put boots on the ground quicker then the Army. In my experience this does not make one better then the other, just trained and prepared for different missions. We are all brothers and sisters in arms, remember that as you deliver your playful jabs.

Response by SSG Wally Lawver made Mar 19 at 2015 12:34 PM

SSG Wally Lawver — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 12:34:32 -0400

NO WAY:)

Response by LCDR Kevin Black made Mar 19 at 2015 12:38 PM

LCDR Kevin Black — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 12:38:38 -0400

Truman wanted to do things like this.. It was a bad idea then, and it still is. The Navy and Marine core function together as a maritime based force. If anything dissolve the Air Force back into the Army. Truman wanted to get rid of aircraft carriers and pretty much the Navy figuring the Air Force could just use the A-Bomb and that would end any conflict. Didn't think there would ever be another amphibious landing or need for the Marines again. The system as it is could use adjustments, the Navy has far too few ships but yet a far too large civilian supporting staff ashore. China is growing it's Navy rapidly and will be a significant blue water force in short order. Will there be a conflict? Nobody really knows but you can't assume there won't be and not build the forces necessary. The next conflict it will be too late to be building after it starts. You must have the forces necessary from the beginning.

Response by SSG Wally Lawver made Mar 19 at 2015 12:58 PM

SSG Wally Lawver — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 12:58:20 -0400

NO WAY. Problem is anything the Marines do, yes,maybe the Army could do, but at 10x's the cost. Frugality is a word foreign to the Army, the Marines pack a hefty punch for the dollar, so maybe the Army should look at how they conduct day to day business and take note. (I do understand many support funtions are provided the Marines on the USN's budget)....I was an active duty Marine 12 years, got out joined National Guard, Sept 11th happened boom ended up active duty Army retired at 1st opportunity....So as an enlisted Marine/soldier NCO, there are huge differences I saw as I swithched branches(attitudes/personnel), both do a great job for America, Marines just are more cost effective at it. Quality/Quantity/apples/oranges

Response by 1SG Jason Smith made Mar 19 at 2015 1:12 PM

1SG Jason Smith — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 13:12:08 -0400

No we should not combine. One thing I have noticed throughout all this interservice rivalry is that not one of you has mentioned anything about the oath we all take as members of the military which is very sacred to me and that is the mission of each one of us. We are to support and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies foreign and domestic and to obey the orders of the president and the officers appointed over us. IF and this is a huge IF this topic was even being seriously discussed by anyone in the government it would fall to those in government to make that call. We as professionals in the arms would obey our orders and carry them out to the best of our abilities. And to do otherwise would be demeaning to those of our brothers and sisters who paid for our history with their blood and ultimate sacrifice. Stop the my branch is better than your branch crap and remember we all face the same enemy when looking down the sights of our weapons.

Response by SSG Patrick Smith made Mar 19 at 2015 1:17 PM

SSG Patrick Smith — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 13:17:48 -0400

I used to think the same way when I was a young LCPL. I asked my seniors (SNCOs) why we needed both the Army and the Marine Corps. I was told that each branch had a purpose. The Army is a long - term, warfighting force. That's the reason for the large numbers. And also for occupation. You need numbers to occupy an area that has been taken.
The Marine Corps is mainly an assault force. Not meant for waging wars in the general sense. Marines move in quick to take an area Anna hold it till the Army arrives to occupy. Not to say the Marines can't fight! Only that the Corps was not meant to conduct extended campaigns.
I think this concept was behind the recent restructuring of the Army. To make them more like the Marine Corps terms of being more expeditious (deployable).

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2015 1:26 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 13:26:50 -0400

They should certainly share fatigues to cut down on cost.

Better yet, how about they just move all non combat jobs to dod civilian/contractor and have uniformed personnel be combat jobs.

i fail to understand listening to a senior commander or senior enlisted who doesn't have a clue about what it means to be a troop or fight a war.

it'd save billions of dollars in healthcare, retirement, and cut the pog mentality out of the supposed combat forces who are sidelined by nonsensical regulations and formality.

There certainly are redundancies within the modern conflict as to the roles that the different services provide. To attempt to remove a structure is to threaten an organization with the gravest threat imaginable, loss of position and budget.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2015 1:29 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 13:29:37 -0400

To save money, the Army Reserve/Natty Guard should be rolled into one.

The army could also promote a spirit of cooperation instead of mini fiefdom mentality where people do their specific little bit but absolutely nothing more.

Response by Cpl Carlos Olvera made Mar 19 at 2015 1:33 PM

Cpl Carlos Olvera — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 13:33:14 -0400

No, the Army has her objectives and so does the Corps. Just for the record a Marine will never put his or her traditions and camaraderie aside. These are the reasons Marines fight the way we do. I believe that Army and Marine joint ops are practical but a joint branch will not happen unless a soldier will earn the title Marine because a Marine will not give that up.

Response by Cpl Martin Sr made Mar 19 at 2015 1:39 PM

Cpl Martin Sr — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 13:39:42 -0400

No, the Branches should be kept separate.

Response by PV2 Jesse Morris made Mar 19 at 2015 1:41 PM

PV2 Jesse Morris — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 13:41:25 -0400

Big picture, given that the nature of conflict and defense will change (in some ways) over time and the resources of the United States will also change, a merger may, at some point, be advisable. I don't see it happening anytime soon, but change is inevitable, so I'd vote a very cautious, "Maybe someday."

My fear is that the decision would be based on number crunching alone without consideration of the overwhelming influence of the intangibles that make service what it is--the spirit of service itself. Any action that does not carefully factor this impact--if it's even possible to do so--will risk unforeseen complications and possible failure.

Response by PV2 David Minnicks made Mar 19 at 2015 1:43 PM

PV2 David Minnicks — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 13:43:50 -0400

No, while they both have similarities in being combat oriented they are dissimilar in combat role, training and mission to start. Marines are an expeditionary force while the Army is an occupational force. I believe that each branch of our armed services has a specific role and this has evolved over time as a result of combat or police actions to best deal with situational circumstances. If there were no choice and we absolutely had to merge branches of our armed services it is my opinion that a better fit and more practical merge would be Army-Air Force and/or Marines-Navy.

Response by SSG Reginald Begay made Mar 19 at 2015 1:46 PM

SSG Reginald Begay — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 13:46:22 -0400

USMC is a Corps of Naval just as Airborne Corps to ARMY. My father is both Navajo Code (IWO JIMA) Talker and paratrooper (CHOSIN). Both elements are part of higher unit organization and higher standards to adhere IAW tradition of warfare. It requires a command decision from the commander of forces.

Response by PV2 Glen Lewis made Mar 19 at 2015 2:38 PM

PV2 Glen Lewis — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 14:38:01 -0400

I don't see the consolidation making a military difference except perhaps that the Marines alienating the Army, something like the Berets and Rangers being the best of the Army which always annoyed me. Put in the Marines and you have another designation of superiority in the force. They all have their jobs and I don't see the point in combining them.

Response by Cpl Stephen Williams made Mar 19 at 2015 2:46 PM

Cpl Stephen Williams — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 14:46:46 -0400

the marines are already consolidated with the navy. marines by definition are naval landing forces. as far as i'm concerned, the air force should still be the army air corps.

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Mar 19 at 2015 3:23 PM

CPT Pedro Meza — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 15:23:39 -0400

The ARMY needs to continue being the ARMY and the Marines the Marines, but the Marines need to be and independent service just like the ARMY. I understand the origins and tradition of Marines with the Navy, but those were in the past, when transportation was by ship. In today's global warfare/guerrilla warfare the Marines are at times restricted by the Navy bureaucracy. In the same way that the Air Force broke off from the ARMY the Marines need to do same breaking away from the Navy.

Response by Cpl Derrick Keller made Mar 19 at 2015 3:45 PM

Cpl Derrick Keller — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 15:45:39 -0400

This to me is an insult, even to ask the question is insulting. I believe in every branch of our armed forces and they all serve their respected purpose. I think that this should never happen as long as there is this great nation to protect. Marines are different in almost every aspect from that of a solider and are used for different types of conflicts and in different scenarios. This is the very thing that will weaken the most powerful military in the world. Marines train harder too, look at the differences in Boot Camp from that of Basic Training. Semper Fi

Response by SGT Chris Reese made Mar 19 at 2015 5:13 PM

SGT Chris Reese — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 17:13:23 -0400

In my personal opinion I don't see where the matters. We all take the same oath so as long as we all serve together as brothers/sisters who cares the color of the uniform or the name on it. I have family in each branch and we don't care what unit or branch we are affiliated with as long as the mission is accomplished in the right manner. Why can't we all just accept that we are all part of the United States Military and forget about the branch of service. In combat does it matter who has your back whether Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marines? It never bothered me.

Response by SGT Michael Glenn made Mar 19 at 2015 5:23 PM

SGT Michael Glenn — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 17:23:21 -0400

Depends on who you ask I guess???? will Army Pukes have to be vaccinated for rabies??? Will the Jar Heads have to wear muzzles???? I say this all in good fun by the way and think that it would be awesome to see a merge like this and watch individuals drop like flies if the standards stay in the Marines house.I think the Army has grown too soft and it would do them some good to get back to their roots! SEMPER FI !!!!!!!!

Response by Sgt Ronald Scurry made Mar 19 at 2015 5:55 PM

Sgt Ronald Scurry — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 17:55:05 -0400

The Army and the Marine Corps exist as separate services because they have separate missions. Before we should ask if multiple services should be joined, We have to ask how the mission has changed.

Response by LCpl Arrick Moore made Mar 19 at 2015 6:00 PM

LCpl Arrick Moore — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 18:00:08 -0400

Absolutely NOT. Thinking objectively is what is taking this country down the toilet.

Each branch and unit has it's purpose. The only reason why someone is trying to "Merge the Army and Marines" is to get the Marines to soften up and not go toe to toe with some ignorant politician who is trying to downsize the United States Military Forces. I wonder if anyone has looked into the HISTORY of the Marines, and what they really are, why they are in fact called "Marines".

Do you not realize that they fall UNDER the United States Navy for a reason?

Response by SGT George Smead made Mar 19 at 2015 6:22 PM

SGT George Smead — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 18:22:25 -0400

It would help the Marines secure better funding for equipment and MOS schools since they are still considered the bastard step-children of the Navy. It would be better if they were not affiliated with the USN. Make them a totally separate branch.

Response by WO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2015 6:25 PM

WO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 18:25:14 -0400

I feel that we should stay separated so that each branch can stay focused on their unique tasks that they are designed and prepare for. Consolidation for a business stand point might make sense but from a smooth running machine I feel that it would make more sense to leave it as it is.

Response by PV2 Ronald Howdeshell made Mar 19 at 2015 6:44 PM

PV2 Ronald Howdeshell — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 18:44:20 -0400

As a former Army enlisted man there was a lot of competition between the branches. Having said that, in the civilian world I worked as a corrections officer with both former Army, and Marines. My brother Army vets set a good example, in particular 2 female captains. My Marine Corps brothers also distinguished themselves as both officers, and supervisors. We liked to tease one another, but in an emergency we functioned as a team. I think both services have their merits, and missions, and should be kept as individual branches to serve their own missions. One reason is redundancy, if one branch should be less then effective, another branch with different strengths, and tactics would be available. Another reason is checks, and balances, if a team were to go off mission, and need to be dealt with using a team from another branch would be easier on the individuals having to do the dealing.

Response by SFC Dave Hopkins Jr. made Mar 19 at 2015 7:25 PM

SFC Dave Hopkins Jr. — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 19:25:26 -0400

No. It's worked great for over 235 years. Don't mess with success.

Response by SGT Joe Sabedra made Mar 19 at 2015 7:36 PM

SGT Joe Sabedra — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 19:36:42 -0400

No.
Different missions.

If so then meld the Air Force and Navy too since all fly aircraft.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2015 8:08 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 20:08:19 -0400

Ok this age old question will never die. Taking out the bias and traditions both branches have or lack thereof, they have different missions. The Army is built as an occupying force, we as Marines are not, we're expeditionary. There are similarities but much more different than similar. The Marine Corps is unique, but Im not talking about history/ traditions/etc, the uniqueness comes from the fact that we're the only combined arms force in the world. Other countries and the other branches have their gear and a wide range of capabilities, but the Corps encompasses all into one "unit" per se. Yes each branch has their unique capabilites but if youre in the Army and need air support (beyond helo) you'll need outside support, if youre in the Air Force and need to take over an area without bombing it, you'll need outside support, if youre in the Navy and need an infantry to press on and secure more land area (without using missiles), you'll need outside help. The Marine Corps has all the issues covered for the most part (barring very specific mission niches) . The problem with the Marine Corps is that they cant stay for too long in an area due to their size/ funding and thus requires the other branches to occupy what has already been taken over. Without a doubt each branch has something that is being done in the other branches and may be better at, but the issue is, is that the Marine Corps has a broad spectrum, and though we may be the best in some aspects, those in what we're not, is reserved for the other branches.

Response by SGT Marika Waiters made Mar 19 at 2015 8:11 PM

SGT Marika Waiters — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 20:11:21 -0400

Absolutely NOT! Although I know that when push comes to shove, the Army and Marines tend to get along the best, but having served in both I know there is a certain pride in the heritage of each. This kind of esprit de corps MUST be maintained. And that's all I'm going to say about that...

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2015 8:52 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 20:52:13 -0400

We could essentially roll ALL of the branches into one and call it "something". From the outsider's perspective, they all look the same. From the inside, they are each completely different, often with cross-functionality but with significant specialties, expertise and identities.

Response by SPC Bryant Holmes made Mar 19 at 2015 9:22 PM

SPC Bryant Holmes — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 21:22:44 -0400

NO.

Response by CPL Jesse Vasconcelos made Mar 19 at 2015 9:24 PM

CPL Jesse Vasconcelos — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 21:24:26 -0400

I don't believe it would be easily accepted by the Marines as their deep roots of being the Few, the Proud, the Marines would be very tuff as the Army and Marine standards are far frome the same. But if the Marines realize the traing and influence they could be on the Army and like was would be beyond worldly. I think having cross training between the two would have an impact the enemy would not be able to handle. God bless all Service Members both current and Veterans. Great topic to talk about.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2015 10:38 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 22:38:38 -0400

In order to make it simple I would like to use super heroes as an example.
The Marine Corps is like the Spider-Man. He is young, cute, fast, agile and metrosexual.
The Army is like the Hulk. He is older, burly, slower, brute and lumbersexual.

The President sends the Spiderman to move fast, jump over a fence and open the gate so the Hulk can go crush the enemy and occupy their country.

So please, keep them separate because we don't want a slow Spiderman or a cute Hulk.

Response by SSG Nick Tramontano made Mar 19 at 2015 10:43 PM

SSG Nick Tramontano — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 22:43:32 -0400

Absolutely NOT, The Marines are a very unique fighting force. I spent 20+ years in the Army and am proud of my service. If you combine the two you will not only be disrespecting 200+ years of honor and tradition but will have a recipe for disaster and be putting our nation at risk. We all have earned our place in history. With the way the Marines operate they are a unique combined arms team that the world has ever seen.

Response by SSG Nick Tramontano made Mar 19 at 2015 10:49 PM

SSG Nick Tramontano — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 22:49:13 -0400

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2015 11:02 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 23:02:16 -0400

This is a question that has been asked how many times in our nation's history? Now we see it being asked on this forum! Truthfully it's a silly question. Each branch has a set mission as set forth by the National Security Act of 1947 and amended in the National Military Establishment in 1949.

Response by LT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 20 at 2015 12:06 AM

LT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 00:06:01 -0400

Each have their own missions. When the Navy needs specially trained crew doesn't it make sense to have maritime soldiers? That would be the Marines.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 20 at 2015 12:21 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 00:21:23 -0400

A Big Resounding NO! While they are both combat oriented, they are very different in operation. It's hard enough trying to work as a joint task force, but if you were to force them to merge.....it would be a log nightmare.

Plus, then we'd have to teach them all to read :)

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 20 at 2015 12:46 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 00:46:46 -0400

Being a former sailor while serving with marines;and served in the army for several years I think I have the qualifications to answer this one.

But rather let me put in perspective you'll understand. Let me pitch a question that relates:

Should the coast guard consolidate with the navy?

In plain view, they both have ships and they both patrol coastlines.

Obviously, there missions and training are vastly different. The mindset for both is equally different. The same can be said about the army and marines. The marines are trained to take an objective with overwelming force. Marines are trained to use the business end of the rifle and all resources related to that. The marines are not trained to be embedded within culture for lengthy terms.

The army is used for that. Have you noticed a majority of forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are army? The army trains for long-term fortifications. The army is trained for broad spectrum missions that marines do have the capabilities or mindset for. Almost all humanitarian missions are conducted by army.

I'm not trying to favor one branch over the other. I'm not saying either branch has the better training, organization, nor proper mindset. These are the observations I've seen, the training I received from them, and the attitudes I've adapted to while serving with both.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 20 at 2015 3:16 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 03:16:16 -0400

No!!!!

Response by PO1 John Miller made Mar 20 at 2015 6:51 AM

PO1 John Miller — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 06:51:19 -0400

Your question is stupid and you should feel bad. Two totally different missions. You as a Sailor should know what the Marine's mission is and that it is completely separate from the Army's mission.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 20 at 2015 8:41 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 08:41:01 -0400

No because at the end of the day marines are trained more for amphibious operations as well as designed as a protective force for the Navy. The army however is the main land operations force. That's our main mission is land based operations.

Response by SPC Michael Morelli made Mar 20 at 2015 10:12 AM

SPC Michael Morelli — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 10:12:28 -0400

Ok Some people will be butt-hurt by this... however i think it is the most logical... The army needs to separate its personnel into combat arms and POGS with their own semi autonomous organizations. combat arms standards are aloud to slack too much because they have to be POG friendly. The marine corps can stay it own entity if they want, but be made a specific CORPS in the army focused on their traditional mission (infantry brown-water and shoreline operations) . Also all their POGS should be army POGS and separated in the way i have mentioned above.

Response by LTC James Joubert made Mar 20 at 2015 10:39 AM

LTC James Joubert — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 10:39:55 -0400

Yes. In fact consolidate all into a unfied U.S. Military Force. Can have different Divisions I.e. Land, Air, Sea, (Space if you include NASA or we get advanced enough to need one).

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 20 at 2015 11:21 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 11:21:08 -0400

YES, I have felt this way for the past few years now. As a fighting forces we are going to have to do some sort of consolidation whether it is in training, MOS. I also see nothing wrong with one standard uniform between services, jut wear appropriate insignia per service.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 20 at 2015 11:58 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 11:58:18 -0400

I vote NO I am a Marine now in the Army Reserves.

Response by PO2 David Ball made Mar 20 at 2015 12:55 PM

PO2 David Ball — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 12:55:21 -0400

No, however is there still a case for a Separate United States Air Force ? Or for that matter a Constitutional reason to have one ? Folks the United States Marine Corps is STILL and ALWAYS will be a part of the United States Navy...

Response by LCpl James Robertson made Mar 20 at 2015 1:07 PM

LCpl James Robertson — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 13:07:52 -0400

No, USMC comes under the Department Of Navy, the two roles in combat are different. Marines are Fleet Marine Forces, the Army can be anything from Airborne Operations to Mechanized Infantry, I can understand budget cuts, but the Army is big in nature, which would cause the Marine Corps to become another unit in the Army. Today to many things are being consolidated, at Tuns Tavern, if there were no need to form the Marines for Navy Ships for pirates on the high seas, then why form them in the first place. Fleet Marine Forces, are already aboard ship and ready to deploy to any crisis in the world, every branch of the military don't need to become one mass big Army, including the Navy and the Marines. I feel that the militaries works well the way they are. Don't mess-up what's working well already.

Response by Sgt Pete Raciti made Mar 20 at 2015 1:16 PM

Sgt Pete Raciti — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 13:16:02 -0400

No, if there is any consolidation to be had in the defense dept, it should be the Coast Guard to fold into the Navy. The Marine Corps works because of its traditions and history. Those who have served our Nation, I thank you. Those who have Served in the US Marine Corps, I salute you and stand proud as one. S/F, Pete

Response by Sgt Thomas Baskin made Mar 20 at 2015 1:52 PM

Sgt Thomas Baskin — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 13:52:15 -0400

I agree the Army and Marince Corps are combat oriented and are very similar. However, the army primarily conducts dry land combat operations and the Marine Corps conducts amphibious operations and utilizes it naval heritage to mobile anywhere in the world. Could both branches be combined to utilize the sea and land to insert troops for missions, absolutely. I believe training and culture would have to change to accomodate this change.

Each current and former member of both branches would have concerns about merging the two together. It would be a prolific challenge.

Tom Baskin

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 20 at 2015 2:09 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 14:09:40 -0400

No, There are two very different functions behind the abilities and what is expected of these branches. The Marines are designed to storm and area and secure that area for future operations. the Army's job is to take an area and develop it into a long term base of operations and conduct mission from that base.

Response by SPC Phonpaseuth Intharansy made Mar 20 at 2015 3:13 PM

SPC Phonpaseuth Intharansy — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 15:13:05 -0400

I am proud to have worn the Army Green, If I wanted to wear the other branches uniform I would have join them. Army Leads the way..!!!

Response by PO1 Glenn Boucher made Mar 20 at 2015 4:08 PM

PO1 Glenn Boucher — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 16:08:16 -0400

No they should not. Each service is unique and has its mission and has evolved into the changing missions that need to be carried out. Let things be.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 20 at 2015 5:28 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 17:28:30 -0400

No. But given your rationale for combining Army and Marines, why don't you propose combining the less combat oriented branches? (Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard?)

I do think we need ONE uniform. It's needlessly expensive for the services to design their own vanity uniform. We can still be distinguished by service specific badges. I assume Marines feel about their EGA like I feel about my Master Parachutist's Wings - NO ONE GETS THEM OFF OF ME WHILE I AM STILL ALIVE!

Response by SGT Jimmie Gentry made Mar 20 at 2015 6:30 PM

SGT Jimmie Gentry — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 18:30:35 -0400

No I dont think so. Marines operate in smaller units with smaller missions ie, embassy protections. Army is used for large scale theatre operations. However similar the work is the missions are different

Response by Sgt Nick Marshall made Mar 20 at 2015 6:31 PM

Sgt Nick Marshall — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 18:31:16 -0400

In all honesty it makes fiscal sense, but as a Marine, I would hate to see it. I feel the Marines are more of an elite/shock troop type of force, the army larger, stronger and more cumbersome.

Response by SFC John Marek made Mar 20 at 2015 7:48 PM

SFC John Marek — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 19:48:10 -0400

Traditions and such placed aside, the answer is no, they should not merge. As stated several times before, the basic mindset of a Marine and a Soldier are very different. Missions are different and should be kept apart. I have served in both branches and honored to have done so but combining the two services cannot be done without severe consequences.

Response by LCpl Jd Sparks made Mar 20 at 2015 7:51 PM

LCpl Jd Sparks — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 19:51:24 -0400

The phrase is, "hell no", and anyone who would suggest it clearly knows nothing.

Response by SSG Scott Weaver made Mar 20 at 2015 8:36 PM

SSG Scott Weaver — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 20:36:47 -0400

Soo so funny all these Army jokes coming from Marines. Pretty sure the last three national news beastiality headlines were made by Marines.

However....Marines and Army train differently and the mentality is different. The Army needs the Marine's mentality. Combing Marines with the Army would ruin them. You can't place a value on the Marine Corp. No cost is too high.

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Mar 20 at 2015 11:14 PM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 23:14:27 -0400

Should Reese's Pieces Pieces consolidate with Reese's Pieces peanut butter cups? Both are similar. Both taste very yummy. In in a package of Reese's Pieces you get several pieces and it takes a while to set up to eat. With the cups, you only get a few but those are the best two money can buy and they will satisfy your taste buds really fast. Both will satisfy your taste buds. Both have different missions. One will be great for large missions but you need to satisfy the taste buds fast so the cups will have that job and followed by the pieces to maintain happiness. You should keep both separate for both have a unique and very important mission. Both are similar but different at the same time. Nope, I am not dunk.

Response by MSG Douglas Tolliver made Mar 20 at 2015 11:44 PM

MSG Douglas Tolliver — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 23:44:50 -0400

Being objective, no. We need a seaborne, forced entry force and the Marines provide that. They are the experts at amphibious warfare and the operate with the Navy. Yes, the have commonality with the Army but only so far as to achieve their primary mission. The Army is our primary, land warfare force. We are exceedingly good at it. They need to remain separate entities performing their roles and missions.

Response by SGT Frank Leonardo made Mar 21 at 2015 3:04 AM

SGT Frank Leonardo — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 03:04:22 -0400

I have comrades that are UMMC USN the difference is a lot no offense to any one or service but USMC is a hard branch of the USA and I have lots of respect for them modern or old school which went through lots more then the modern USMC I have a co worker who is now 28 and was USMC and I was US Army well lets say ARMY= A aint R= released M=my A=ass Y=yet I am 37 now, if they consolidate tempers might fly in the USMC to certain people

Response by Sgt Matt Rittenhouse made Mar 21 at 2015 3:33 AM

Sgt Matt Rittenhouse — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 03:33:13 -0400

The mind set of both the Army and Marines are just too different. A couple of examples, in the Marines you are taught from day one that all Marines are riflemen. It doesn't mater if you're a cook, aircraft mechanic, heavy equipment operator you are first and foremost a grunt. You ma not be training daily in that capacity but if the need arises you have the basic skill set to locate, engage and destroy an enemy. Look at how both organizations view the effective range of just the m16. Army states that the effective range is 300 meters, while the Marines are expected to engage out to 500 meters.

Response by Sgt Matt Rittenhouse made Mar 21 at 2015 3:35 AM

Sgt Matt Rittenhouse — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 03:35:39 -0400

Forgot one thing. This article is nothing new. The Army has been trying to take over the Marine Corps job for a hundred years now..

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2015 5:36 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 05:36:38 -0400

I don't think it's a good idea. Yes we have some of the same purpose however the Marines have always been the first to fight and we go in and take over then hand it over to the Army who occupies the place or that's the way it should be because that's the way it was in the past. The Marines are the President's first responders to anything. The Marines can get called in without congress approval for 90 days before congress has to approve. The Marines have been called upon more than once to go in and take control of a situation. The Marines go in and get out as soon as possible.

Response by Cpl Kyli Erickson made Mar 21 at 2015 7:52 AM

Cpl Kyli Erickson — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 07:52:51 -0400

Two completely different branches of service.

Response by MAJ Montgomery Granger made Mar 21 at 2015 11:13 AM

MAJ Montgomery Granger — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 11:13:39 -0400

I believe that traditions and camaraderie are the stuff of effective fighting forces. Mission matters. The mission of the Army is to seize and then HOLD ground, sometimes even integrating with civilian populations and foreign national forces. The mission of the Marine Corps is to kill the enemy. Different forces with different missions are essential to effective forces. Teaching someone to be and do one thing and one thing well is easier and produces a more reliable military person than wanting every person to be able to do everything well. Culture and esprit-de-corps are what put the American fighting man/woman above the rest. The rich and successful history of countless Marine and Army units are things Marines and soldiers can lock onto and then be proud of. Serving with pride is essential to effective performance. If it ain't broke, don't fix it! Great question!

Response by CW3 James Bradley made Mar 21 at 2015 12:00 PM

CW3 James Bradley — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 12:00:15 -0400

First there should ALWAYS be a MARINE CORPS. The question is should it come under the Navy or the Army. Indeed there has been discussion about need for a separate Air Force when indeed they were the Army Air Corps. Discussion goes even further over the Medical corps, Why one for each branch? Why not all Medical personnel in one Branch farmed out to who ever needs what at the time. It is way to cut repetitive waste yet maintain strength as politicians rape the military. So I say lets discuss all of it... from services, to corps to uniform, weapons, vehicle, etc! Cut the POGs, beef up the fighting forces, open opportunities for more and different assignments. Alot of flag grade officers could be cut. This is about being lean and mean... ready to fight on land, sea or air. Obviously keep separate uniforms but get just one style color design Combat Utility uniform for all services with minor differences per branch. Cut the bull and millions wasted on the recent uniform wars. Time to grow up... there is trouble coming... big trouble and we need to play catch up football... so ALL options should be on the table!

Response by Maj Mike Sciales made Mar 21 at 2015 12:40 PM

Maj Mike Sciales — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 12:40:00 -0400

The USMC has always had a distinct culture - a warrior ethos that does not blend well with other cultures. It might be tempting, but something invaluable would be lost. The U.S. Army is a big organization and isn't as mobile or adaptive. The Army is designed for other, large scale events. Easier to stick with proven winners. Besides, if they consolidated we'd have to spend all that money teaching Marines to read and write.

Response by GySgt Lloyd LaGrange made Mar 21 at 2015 1:30 PM

GySgt Lloyd LaGrange — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 13:30:30 -0400

NO, I don't think they should.
Even though the MARINE CORPS does SOLDIER like things (ie) Field Operations and such. Both Branches bring UNIQUE missions to the table. First, The United STATES MARINE CORPS is an AMPHIB oriented Force that take's an objective and then moves on. Marine Forces, by Design are not typically an Occupational Force.
ARMY Unit's in my experience , most ARMY unit's have a Different Combat Objective. I do understand that ARMY Unit's & Marine Unit's DO Joint Missions, but to Combine the TWO would in my opinion be self defeating.

Response by PFC Adam Miller made Mar 21 at 2015 2:25 PM

PFC Adam Miller — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 14:25:31 -0400

I say ALL uniformed services should merge into one single Armed Force. We do not need branches, we need uniformity the encourages teamwork and reduces wasteful spending.

Think about the costs associated with researching/issuing uniforms? Different service medals?

Plus, we wont have to hear those Elitist Marines talk about how they win at life or whatever comes out of their mouth... I stopped listening to those rants years ago.

Response by Cpl Gregory Hajder made Mar 21 at 2015 2:37 PM

Cpl Gregory Hajder — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 14:37:42 -0400

FUCK NO !!!!

Response by SGT Craig Northacker made Mar 21 at 2015 3:17 PM

SGT Craig Northacker — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 15:17:21 -0400

The missions are different - as is the training, indoctrination, and standards of service. The upheaval in combining them would, to me, be an enormous waste of time, money, and efficiencies in all services -as each one would be impacted.

Response by SGT Craig Northacker made Mar 21 at 2015 3:20 PM

SGT Craig Northacker — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 15:20:54 -0400

With respect to budgeting - changes in procurement, accountability at all levels in contracting and procurement, and ending Congressional silliness with respect to sponsoring favored clients would be a lot healthier, less expensive, and free up funds to take care of the people who, at the end of the day, are the ones who go root out the bad guys.

Response by SGT Steve Oakes made Mar 21 at 2015 3:28 PM

SGT Steve Oakes — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 15:28:29 -0400

I believe that it would be a mistake to try it. The current level of operational cooperation between the Marines and the Navy is one of the things our enemies fear. It would take to long to recreate that in the Army. We put them together for a reason, it has been an overwhelmingly deadly combination for enemies of this country for over 200 years. Its not broke don't try to fix it!

Response by CPO Norman Ray Moore made Mar 21 at 2015 4:16 PM

CPO Norman Ray Moore — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 16:16:46 -0400

Not no but hell no. I'm retired Navy and proud of it butt the Marines and Army are two distinct and separate armed forces. Who would come up with such a dumb idea?

Response by Cpl Roly Barrueta made Mar 21 at 2015 4:49 PM

Cpl Roly Barrueta — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 16:49:17 -0400

No. Fix the bureaucracy, not the units. The ARMY has their traditions, and the Marine Corps has theirs. Having both units allows diversity in selecting a "family" when you join the Armed Forces. Some people, myself included, just WANT to be a Marine. We joined the Marines to follow the traditions, to be a part of the pride that comes with the Corps. The Army and Marines have similar missions, but they are not the same. Basic training is not the same. Marine Corps failure rate is much higher than the Army's. Their standards, are tougher. They do more, with less. That "Esprit de Corps" would get lost in combining forces. Ultimately, what's the point... Marines are fighters that are stationed on Naval vessels. The integration with Naval command structure, language, and basic knowledge is learned because of that mission, and that allows the Marine Corps to work well with the Navy. This might be lost as well. Plus, there's no way any Marine will ever wear an army cover with pride. Just wont happen. lol Sorry.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2015 5:17 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 17:17:45 -0400

Short answer NO. It would be counter productive to the operational nature of the two branches. Not to mention the cost to do so, in the age of massive cuts to all branches this is not the time to try and redefine the Force.

Response by Sgt Brian Watzig made Mar 21 at 2015 5:59 PM

Sgt Brian Watzig — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 17:59:15 -0400

if its about saving money, disband air force and consolidate them into the other branches. then there wouldnt be bonus pay for being stationed with a different branch

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2015 8:34 PM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 20:34:58 -0400

I will say this read the GD seal of the Marine Corps it says Department of the NAVY, and it says that for a GD reason.

Response by A1C Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2015 8:46 PM

A1C Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 20:46:26 -0400

Looking at the history, the Air Force floundered under Army leadership due to their mission not being air superiority. Each branch has a separate mission, combining any of them would cause those missions to have to change. You can't argue with the pride and honor those Marines have, with their rich history and traditions, you can't drag them down by combining them down into another branch. While the Air Force is young, we still have our own priorities that would be ignored if we were returned to the Army. This debate has been brought up before, the result was the realization that we need each branch to be separate, but to work as a team to eliminate our enemies.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2015 9:02 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 21:02:29 -0400

I see it as an inevitability regardless of how we feel about the service in which we served. It would be practical and more efficient. Budget wise, which seems to be the main motivation for nearly all decisions when it comes to the military, would be the main reason for this push towards consolidation. It may not happen in our lifetime, but I see the United States Military having land, air, and sea divisions all falling under one force. All air forces would be under one command. Take air capabilities away from the Navy, Marines, and Army. Can you imagine how cost effective that would be? Take away the water capabilities of the Army as well. I think the Army has more boats than the Navy, namely tugs. Finally, consolidate all land forces and maintain the Navy for sea or water operations. I may sound like a cost cutting politician, but given the BRAC along with all of the downsizing, I really don't see an end to the continuation of a smaller force. We all have pride in our service branch and no offense to the Marine Corps, but you are "the few, the proud ", because congress dictates the size of the Corp to be that size. I personally think the Army could use a dose of the Corps sense of pride and motivation. Except for the Cav and Infantry units, I really haven't seen the closeness or cohesion the Corps has. Didn't mean to offend anyone, it's just the way I see it coming. One team, one fight. PS of course, this wouldn't apply to all of the branches special operators. Much respect.

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2015 11:01 PM

GySgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 23:01:18 -0400

oh stop it

Response by PV2 Violet Case made Mar 22 at 2015 1:41 AM

PV2 Violet Case — Sun, 22 Mar 2015 01:41:41 -0400

I think that each branch has earned their special patches, badges, tags ect... for their hard work in that area. I hold any service member in high respects, and look at the badges and ranks and stuff they earned that is one thing even today that I look for before endorsing anyone is just that who are they what are they where did they come from what did they endure. Even tho I was not very high ranked look what I went threw while there and still live with to these dying days. This is like saying what each person has worked and strived for is now being united with ones who did not work for it. Even tho I no I could have done better if not for being sick I would never expect to have them give me Sargent now just cause they made me sick so I couldn't prove that and I no I could have made it. That is not how life works no matter how unfair it may seem. This military has its ways ever since the beginning. Each one Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, all of them have their ways of ranking and earning such rank leave it alone. They should stop trying to get all the military and veterans angry by what they do. We are smart and we are strong and we are still united as a family no matter what rank or branch, we respect one another just fine without any outside interferences from people who have never been there especially.

Response by MSgt Steve Miller made Mar 22 at 2015 10:30 AM

MSgt Steve Miller — Sun, 22 Mar 2015 10:30:49 -0400

No! The THREE different branches of service all have a separate operational duty in battle! Some have written that it would never work, but with time the branches would assimilate. Yet, that’s not the point! The point is that each branch, (the Marine Corps being a department of the Navy) has long developed specialized strategic roles in combating the enemy. It has noting to do with tradition, but whether or not these very different roles are still required in battle.

Yet another taxing issue….. no doubt drummed up by liberal thinkers! We also need one world economy, one world order, and one world police force and so on right? This is just more liberal nonsense.

Response by Cpl Christopher Sturdevant made Mar 22 at 2015 10:54 AM

Cpl Christopher Sturdevant — Sun, 22 Mar 2015 10:54:34 -0400

Traditions and camaraderie aside, you can't. The Marines have always been and Naval entity. You can't just say that just because we share a combat orientation means hey we should consolidate. Make no mistake, just because - in light of recent battles - the Marines have shared responsibility over occupying Iraq and Afghanistan does not mean the two branches are the same, and you can't take the traditions away because without that, we would just be another "Army" entity. An "Army" entity we are NOT. We are separate, we always have been, always will be. Even our very origin explains that, what the Marines were made exclusively for is not the same as the Army's. Today's battlefield changes constantly, we know that, so there needs to be an entity that specializes in a certain area. I really don't see what good would come out of consolidation.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 22 at 2015 11:57 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 22 Mar 2015 11:57:16 -0400

WE are all looking at it either from a past or present perspective. All branches have a particular role to play and some are better at it than others, but as Americans we can adapt to anything. Missions have been changed at a stroke of a pen. Uniforms come and go. Equipment either refurbished or sold to other countries which later become our enemies. As far as training, I know for a fact that the Basic Training of all branches has changed. Any veteran will tell you that. We couldn't fathom what the veterans went through in the past when they went to Basic Training or Boot Camp. As far as Warrior Ethos, it can be taught from a unified perspective. Just because it has been done a certain way for a long time doesn't mean it cant change. Look at the Navy SEALs and the Air Force Combat Controllers which are fairly new compared to Rangers. Sure they are Special Ops, but the training evolved to suit the needs of the mission at hand. It can be done and unfortunately it probably will. Plenty of changes are coming, but we can adapt just as we have in the past.

Response by MSgt David Rollins made Mar 22 at 2015 3:23 PM

MSgt David Rollins — Sun, 22 Mar 2015 15:23:29 -0400

Let me ponder that question for a minute..NO!

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 22 at 2015 11:01 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 22 Mar 2015 23:01:45 -0400

So from this observation point, the Marines do have a very long and proud history and a higher standard for service and acceptance and that is to their credit,
But to quote McCain " I understand we have an Army to control the Ground, and a Air Force to control the Air, But why does that Navy that controls the sea have a Army and an Air Force in the Marines ?".

They have the best uniforms, advertising machine and attitude but..

This could save Hundreds of Millions of dollars ...

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 22 at 2015 11:15 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 22 Mar 2015 23:15:57 -0400

The way I feel is that you need the two branches separate. Now i am not saying one branch is better then the other but there is a rivalry there and with that rivalry both branches do better. When you are working you want your branch to be the best. So in my opinion it is for the best to keep them separate.

Response by LCpl Larry Miller made Mar 23 at 2015 12:38 AM

LCpl Larry Miller — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 00:38:25 -0400

No I don't think they would be able too nothing personal but we as Marines had it tougher at our mos school then the soldiers at Fort Knox I was a tank mech and we had to learn a lot more of vehicles plus my wife now is still in the army and she said there is no way she would even think about being a Marine she has the utmost respect for the Corps she did a one year deployment in Iraq and supported the Marines a lot and she probably wouldn't be alive if it wasn't for them don't get me wrong she loves the army but I agree with her on how the two branches are trained

Response by Cpl Tou Lee Yang made Mar 23 at 2015 12:41 AM

Cpl Tou Lee Yang — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 00:41:01 -0400

From my understanding, the POTUS can mobilize the Marines without consulting or getting approval from Congress.

Response by PO2 Daniel Harris made Mar 23 at 2015 1:19 AM

PO2 Daniel Harris — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 01:19:18 -0400

Hell no!

Response by Cpl Brent Saravia made Mar 23 at 2015 1:53 AM

Cpl Brent Saravia — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 01:53:50 -0400

Negative I have respect for anyone who serves in any branch male or female, however, each branch has a specialty that requires the need to have separate branches.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 23 at 2015 2:00 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 02:00:04 -0400

No, I have been to joint service schools, and done joint service training. Each branch has its own mission set and things they bring to the table. While much of it may seem to overlap between the Army and the Marine Corps if a merger were to happen I feel that our armed services would lose the best parts of both services and be a more mediocre super branch.

Response by SFC Scott Crouch made Mar 23 at 2015 6:36 AM

SFC Scott Crouch — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 06:36:32 -0400

This is a huge resounding NO!

Response by Cpl Peter Martuneac made Mar 23 at 2015 10:45 AM

Cpl Peter Martuneac — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 10:45:20 -0400

If there is to be any consolidation of branches, push the Air Force back into the Army (the Navy has its own air element anyway). And if you really feel the need to put the Marines somewhere, have the Navy absorb us. Turn "Marine" into an MOS in the Navy, an elite infantry MOS (but not quite on the level of SEALs). Kind of like the Army's Ranger Regiment, but on a larger scale so as to make possible any future amphibious invasions. And before anyone goes on about amphibious invasions being a thing of the past, that's what they said before Korea.

Response by 1SG Scott MacGregor made Mar 23 at 2015 12:45 PM

1SG Scott MacGregor — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 12:45:00 -0400

The Army and Marine Corps has totally and completely different mission sets. Yes the Infantry's mission is pretty much the same between the forces but when it comes to mission sets, they are different. Not to disparrage the Corps, there is a reason why the Department of the Marine Corps does not exist. The Navy and Marines go hand in hand for shore operations. The Army does not have the training or capacity to conduct large scale beach operations. Although WW2 Operation Overload was the exception, by and large, this mission falls on the Marines. Combining forces would complicate things and blur mission lines.

Response by TSgt Tim (lj) Littlejohn made Mar 23 at 2015 6:49 PM

TSgt Tim (lj) Littlejohn — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 18:49:32 -0400

We have joint response units now that do great together. To train everybody to do every-bodies job, NO. Just another reason for congress to further cut the military and that is the last damn thing we need to do!!!!!!!!!!!!

Response by SFC Jeremy Smith made Mar 23 at 2015 7:30 PM

SFC Jeremy Smith — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 19:30:25 -0400

Never two different missions...plus in respect to doctrine they would have to relearn almost everything like Marksmanship, Drill and Ceremony (close order drill) moving to either 9 or 13 man squads Marine Infantry Battalions have about 400 more bodies than the Army. I was in both....In my opinion it would take years to move something like that and would cost a lot more money to do it.

Response by GySgt Nick Boyles made Mar 23 at 2015 9:17 PM

GySgt Nick Boyles — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 21:17:14 -0400

Never, They have been trying to do this forever!

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 24 at 2015 12:25 AM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 24 Mar 2015 00:25:47 -0400

As one with over 20 yrs in and having spent time, well over a year total, on army bases for schools and exercises, I would love (yet hate) it if the Ground Arm of the U.S. military were one. A good measure of excess would then be eliminated (think IT systems and maint, contractor support agencies, and other support activities that could be consolidated, etc). That said, integration would be a nightmare for many years and establishing standards would be a huge sticking point on both sides. Are we giving the Corps' jets to the army? Will the UDP/MEU rotation expand to the so many more units? Will we get rid of Specialist? Will E-4 and E-5 have the authority to lead Solines? And on and on. I would not want to lose the many things that the Corps has established. A little disjointed and "rant-y" but there it is.

Response by Cpl Bryan Kirk made Mar 25 at 2015 11:31 AM

Cpl Bryan Kirk — Wed, 25 Mar 2015 11:31:46 -0400

Absolutely not! There are traditions that are distinctly Marine Corps and distinctly Army. As someone who serve in both branches, I can tell you that it is that distinction that sets them both apart. Although the combat roles are in some ways similar, the training, the ethos and the pride that comes with being called a Marine, or a Soldier cannot be consolidated and would not only serve to homogenize two great branches of our military, but diminish two centuries of great military history.

Response by SSG Kevin Smith made Mar 25 at 2015 11:47 AM

SSG Kevin Smith — Wed, 25 Mar 2015 11:47:19 -0400

No...not a good idea. Organizational culture is to different. Marines mentality of infantryman first job second would contradict the army's current culture of soft mos skills focusing on there skill. I applaud the Marines for this. To much disruption. Strategically where would the amphibious force come from ever gone to an army pool and watched soldiers swim ha.

Response by 1SG Michael Blount made Mar 25 at 2015 2:35 PM

1SG Michael Blount — Wed, 25 Mar 2015 14:35:19 -0400

Here's an idea: can we try this on a pilot basis? Take an Army and Marine infantry or artillery battalion, combine them and see what happens? Brigade-level would be too big to start with, and company-level too small, so battalion might be just the right size.

Response by SGT David Felten made Mar 26 at 2015 5:54 PM

SGT David Felten — Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:54:21 -0400

Yes. There functions are the same, plus it would make them more organized and efficient.

Response by CWO4 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 27 at 2015 12:45 AM

CWO4 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 27 Mar 2015 00:45:41 -0400

I cannot see how the drastically different doctrinal philosophies of war fighting between the two services can be consolidated. It takes a lot more than a mere perception of similarity based on a focus on combat arms.

Response by SGT(P) Khalid Wise made Mar 27 at 2015 5:48 PM

SGT(P) Khalid Wise — Fri, 27 Mar 2015 17:48:46 -0400

As a former marine and retired US Army instructor/writer in MI, let me actually entertain this by simply running the facts and then asking the only relevant question if this is under serious discussion.

USMC Standard
PFT 3mile Run, Pull-ups, Sit-ups (marines must pass every event 60% in Boot Camp and after)
Every marine a skilled rifleman first, MOS second
Boot Camp is 16 weeks (PISC or San Diego MCRD 12 Wks + School of Infantry fire team/squad tactics 4 Wks accelerated)

US Army Standard
(excluding Delta, Special Forces, Ranger Regiment, Infantry and MI Great Skills Programs)
PFT 2mile Run, Push-ups, Sit-ups (soldiers are not required to pass 60% until AIT or MOS School)
Soldiers have no initial-entry infantry training and cannot request or be sent to these schools until after AIT
Basic Training is 8 weeks (no Infantry School training available)

These are just the fundamental (or core) differences between soldiers and marines. I am sure there are possibly more but these are the ones that most directly impact combat effectiveness and power as a military force. Which means the real question is which will you unwaveringly enforce (do we raise all soldiers to the current USMC Standard or lower all marines to the current US Army Standard)? I do not believe that either force is ready to so dramatically change their respective paradyms, JMHO.

Proudly SEMPER FIDELIS and ALWAYS OUT FRONT!!

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 28 at 2015 2:09 AM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 28 Mar 2015 02:09:16 -0400

Main reason I would oppose that move is: Marines have spent way too much time, effort, pride, and money building their image to waste the investment. If they rolled into just another special group like rivron, mobile security, rangers, etc. They would lose much of their recognition and therefore versatility.

Response by SGT Lamont Hilliard made Mar 28 at 2015 3:16 AM

SGT Lamont Hilliard — Sat, 28 Mar 2015 03:16:23 -0400

The reality of the Army and Marines merging is something that should NEVER be considered. Though similar they are VERY different. The customs and courtesies they have are very different. Merging the USMC and USA would be like trying to merge the United States and Canada, As someone who has served in two branches (Navy & Army).I would know the differences in military sub cultures. I doubt if that would ever happen. The Navy and the Marine Corps are like two opposite sides of a coin. And both share a long complicated history. But i do believe the reality of the Air Force merging with the Army is possible. Since historically the Air Force (formerly the Army Air Corps) is the youngest branch in existence. This would save the US government billions in hard earned tax money.

Response by SPC Jeffrey Cuthbertson made Mar 28 at 2015 7:47 AM

SPC Jeffrey Cuthbertson — Sat, 28 Mar 2015 07:47:51 -0400

I'm for the merge. Makes better since to budget a unified force.

Response by PO2 Austin Songer made Mar 28 at 2015 12:50 PM

PO2 Austin Songer — Sat, 28 Mar 2015 12:50:14 -0400

They have completely different missions so why would this question even be asked?

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 29 at 2015 12:01 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 29 Mar 2015 00:01:52 -0400

I'm surprised that this is coming from a PO1 instead of a drunk private. Marines may be grunts, but their primary means of conveyance is the Navy, right? Also, after working with both I've come to find that although non-POG Marines may break things for a living, they are substantially more intellectual than the run of the mill soldier.

In regards to the Air Force challenge, read a book. A big reason that the Air Force was established is to allow Airmen to be technically sufficient enough to make metallic objects fly. Non-maintenance Airmen are specifically trained in securing and supporting airfields. Whether it be airfield security or sweeping the airbase pool for nasty bugs, we all have a purpose in that regard. Airmen are not soldiers, and although with the recent leadership trying to tell us we're warriors, we're not. We're technicians and aren't proficient enough in shooting things to qualify as such.

So, reflecting what I just stated, we all have our own purpose for the circumstance our service is bred for. Don't think that you're qualified to mix them up.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 29 at 2015 10:55 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 29 Mar 2015 10:55:36 -0400

What no definitely not

Response by CPT Quentin von Éfáns-Taráfdar made Mar 30 at 2015 3:56 AM

CPT Quentin von Éfáns-Taráfdar — Mon, 30 Mar 2015 03:56:34 -0400

There are two reasons that I can think of as to why they should not be amalgamated.

1) They have different missions and should they be joined there would be "mission confusion".

2) Right after WWII there was a movement to abolish the Marines completely, just as the Rangers and Special Services Force were. Fortunately there were still enough people with brains in Congress in those days that they passed a bill making the Marines a permanent fixture of the US military. When you start removing elite units where does it stop and how much time and money does it take to reform these units when it is discovered years later that these units are indeed needed such as we did in Korea and Vietnam?

Response by 1LT Christopher Goss made Mar 30 at 2015 9:49 AM

1LT Christopher Goss — Mon, 30 Mar 2015 09:49:48 -0400

I see a lot of non-objective, emotional responses to this proposition. I have been guilty of a few, as well. However, to answer the OP, a non-emotional, objective response. I'll try.

No, they should not. I think it would be feasible. I don't think it would be reasonable. Due to the emotional responses, I think it would cause conflict. Emotions aside, it would definitely be a Charlie Foxtrot, at least for several years.

Several posters on here, myself included, have mentioned that in all actuality, the Army can, and does, regularly, accomplish the roles currently assigned to the Marine Corps. In fact, the only role that the Army does not regularly conduct that has ever been assigned the Marines is the protection of U.S. Naval assets.

However, in order to effectively and regularly absorb the U.S.M.C.'s doctrinal mission, the Army would eventually need (or want) to create a separate Corps of Marines, or whatever the term they assigned them. It would be a branch, same as infantry, cav, sf, etc.

Most people that are in support of this tout fiscal savings and streamlined logistics as a reason for the consolidation. Yes, some streamlining would occur. Same uniforms, same equipment, and so on. However, do/did you actually serve? In this military? What form of logistics is ever streamlined? And what sensible fiscal policy is ever actually employed? I mean, come on! Are we in the same military?!

The only "streamlining" that would actually occur is the deployment logistics, and last I checked, the Corps outsourced that to the Army for OIF/OEF anyway.

So, what you'd have is another branch of the Army. Another one, because you can't have enough (soon, each MOS will be it's own branch at this rate). Why stop there? Why not incorporate the Navy, the Air Force, and even the Coast Guard's wartime mission under that same umbrella?

Wait...

We do. It's called the DoD. We're all on a common budget, albeit divided amongst the branches. We're all on a common payscale. We all get paid from the same entity (DFAS). We just wear different uniforms, and speak as if we're somehow different. Basically, it's like a bunch of highschoolers fighting over who's homeroom is better, when we're all in the same damn school.

So, in response to the OP, possible, but pointless. In response to everyone on here that's made a reasonable, non-emotional comment, thank you for your ability to follow instructions and act as a professional. And for everyone that's exhibited 10 degrees of butthurt, maybe go back to high school, argue about homeroom for a couple years, then grow up, and reup. Rant over. Out.

Response by PFC Mike Mcdermott made Mar 30 at 2015 9:37 PM

PFC Mike Mcdermott — Mon, 30 Mar 2015 21:37:43 -0400

Great idea! I'd be a little sad to see the loss of the Hospital Corpsman but this would be better for the services

Response by SSG Paul Lanciault made Mar 31 at 2015 7:37 AM

SSG Paul Lanciault — Tue, 31 Mar 2015 07:37:10 -0400

Great question. I read a lot of responses. Most are good, many are we train harder, say it louder, was told we were better. Each branch does a job and does it well. The Army has it share of fat bodies, so does the Air Force and Navy. There seem to be fewer in the Marines, but they are there. Does that make them bad service members? I picked up AWOLs from each branch and the stories were pretty much the same; these people had a break down in their chain of command or NCO support channel (For shame on both). That tells me all these branches do things well and can screw things up too. Most service members say they are in the Army, Navy or Air Force, only the Marines say I'm a Marine, are they part of sometime greater than themselves, or did they lose their identity? I think there could be some consolidating. Army, Marines, and Air Force. Navy and Coast Guard. Maybe. Money I'm sure will drive it at some point. But there will be some pretty pissed off Generals and Admirals.

Response by Cpl Karl Gleason made Mar 31 at 2015 11:47 AM

Cpl Karl Gleason — Tue, 31 Mar 2015 11:47:25 -0400

NO.......................Period.

Response by SSgt Matthew Lee made Apr 1 at 2015 2:55 PM

SSgt Matthew Lee — Wed, 01 Apr 2015 14:55:09 -0400

I'm sorry but I was Army first then went to the Marine Corps. Of the two I prefer the Marines. When I was in the Army it was every man for himself attitude, in the Marines we are truly a brotherhood. It doesn't matter what your job is...there may be banter between air-wing and ground side but we still have each others backs no matter what. While in the Marines I deployed for 9 months to Iraq as and individual augment with an Army command. Worst 9 months of my Marine Corps career. As a Staff Sergeant I was treated like crap by the Army unit I was assigned to...I never got treated like that in any Marine unit I was with. There is a big difference between the services and I think joining the two would be a disservice to the Marine Corps.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 1 at 2015 6:35 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Apr 2015 18:35:57 -0400

And that happened way before the Army said it was ok.
I rest my case.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Apr 2 at 2015 12:14 AM

CAPT Kevin B. — Thu, 02 Apr 2015 00:14:20 -0400

I've had a couple of Purple billets and this topic has come up frequently. We did have a partial merger in the creation of SOCOM following the failed Eagle Claw Operation. My subsequent encounters with that outfit left me with the impression that it was tapped out insofar as being able to manage all the skill sets, capabilities, etc. to its mission set. Doing amazing things while keeping your people alive is hard work. That was just for SPECOPS. So my Systems side told me that to run an Army/Marine or AF/NAVAIR organization would ultimately create a slower response ponderous beast. You want a critical mass of people, equipment, training, etc. to meet a defined mission menu. Full merger would be like telling all the NGO/PVOs out there to merge and solve world hunger next week.

The studies I read up on in the 90's never drilled down to what it would actually take to create and run the organization and tended to be "We'll have an Army and then a Deputy to run the Marine "stuff"". Kinda reminded me of staff work resulting in giving the Commander one option and two throwaways. Not helpful.

Response by SPC Donald Tribble made Apr 2 at 2015 4:03 AM

SPC Donald Tribble — Thu, 02 Apr 2015 04:03:16 -0400

The concern that I have is consolidation for the sake of perceived efficiency (read here cost savings). I offer this example; Emergency Medical Services (EMS) was a third service municipal operation in both New York City and San Francisco. Both were run by the Department of Health in each city. During the early 90's both cities decided to merge their EMS service into the Fire Department ad a cost saving measure. There are too many variables in the merger to address in this post, but the outcome in both cities had been a decrease in the quality of service to the taxpayers. The cost savings aren't all that significant at best, the response times are poor and the EMS side of the house is fighting with the fire side for a slice of the budget. When looking at "efficiency" in an operation the final product has to be evaluated as the highest priority. In looking at combining an of the branches of the Military one must consider operational success not just cost savings. There's a old adage about, "the he cost of doing business."

Response by CPO Sam Gilliland made Apr 5 at 2015 9:10 PM

CPO Sam Gilliland — Sun, 05 Apr 2015 21:10:18 -0400

Marines and Navy are already consolidated. Marines and Army...two different breeds, would never get along. Leave it the way it is.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 7 at 2015 6:04 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 07 Apr 2015 18:04:18 -0400

Most of these responses are based on what branch your in. I feel there should not be a merge at all. There is too completely different mind sets, 2 different capabilities, and the responsibilities each branch takes is 2 different ranks depending on your branch. What the Marine Corps and Army see as for ranks in certain positions are completely different. So does this mean one person loses his responsibilities are or his position because his rank doesn't match what his responsibilities should be based on the organization he was forced to join? There is too much history and legacy on each branch for one to buy into the other. If you a Marine you know what im talking about. We fight to put ourselves in that long line of history as the Marines that went before us. We have our traditions that we keep every day. If your an Army Solider i can only assume its the same. If i was forced to be in the Army id lose the pride that i have and vice versa for you Army Soliders. Im not going to sit here and say the Marine Corps is better and i expect the maturity back that Army Soliders wouldnt do the same. The fact is we do the same job essentially with different capabilities and limitations, with different personel. yes we do similar missions but not exactly the same ones. They need to be there own identities because you cannot combine the two. Its just different.

Response by SFC Michael MacLuskie made Apr 8 at 2015 11:53 AM

SFC Michael MacLuskie — Wed, 08 Apr 2015 11:53:03 -0400

After reading many of the comments here from other Vets who has served more than one hitch it is obvious that those with less time in boots do not understand that there are these separate entities in the military for a reason and CW4 Curtis couldn't have said it better! Each are equally as vital.

Response by SPC Angel Guma made Apr 8 at 2015 7:50 PM

SPC Angel Guma — Wed, 08 Apr 2015 19:50:12 -0400

Yes, the Armicorps sounds tough.

Response by SSG Thomas Brousseau made Apr 9 at 2015 11:11 PM

SSG Thomas Brousseau — Thu, 09 Apr 2015 23:11:46 -0400

Yes. The Marines share their budget with the Navy and because of this the Marines are not as well equipped as the Army. Both forces are ground forces the only two differences are (1) that the Marines are trained for amphibious landings. Soldiers can also be trained for amphibious landings as well, example; Normandy D-Day. (2) Marines are tasked with protection of the White House and US embassies. Soldier can do that as well.

Response by SPC Angel Guma made Apr 11 at 2015 12:06 AM

SPC Angel Guma — Sat, 11 Apr 2015 00:06:26 -0400

All branches are combat oriented. Nuclear submarines are no joke! Some just put more people direct combat than others.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 11 at 2015 10:47 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 11 Apr 2015 22:47:31 -0400

If you look at job description only then yes. If you look at what actually seperates the two like when I see Marines I see well dressed and motivated and in shape but when I see Army I see quite the opposite. I think by keeping them seperate that allows the Marines to continue to get the quality force they have now and the Army gets the rest. If you combine you will bring one group up but another down.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 12 at 2015 1:26 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 12 Apr 2015 01:26:58 -0400

Yes and no:
All the armed forces should be merged above division level or maybe corps level. We can combined our logistics and research and development, we can merge acquisitions, we can merge all the units that operate above division level. This reduces redundancies, we can also merge base operations, finance, and garrison support functions. These merges would creat a system where everyone uses the same gear, everyone has the best combat uniform, everyone has the same barracks, and such.
Now when we combined these functions the individuals would still bong to their "branch" but would work at a completely joint environment. Everyone below that would stay as separate branches. We reduce top heavy staffs, eliminate 4 different "units" doing the same job (I.e. Developing the uniforms or equipment).
This is already done in some countries, the IDF for example is the whole Israel armed forces but they have separate branches operating under it. The combined their higher level units like I describe IOT reduce defense spending and simplify supply functions. We can do the same, when we deploy we already have branches serving under combatant commanders of other branches.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 12 at 2015 6:52 PM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 12 Apr 2015 18:52:26 -0400

I think combining any of the branches would increase bureaucracy just as with increasing the size of any organization, so I'm going to say no they should not be combined.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 12 at 2015 7:52 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 12 Apr 2015 19:52:48 -0400

I honestly don't care we are all American troops and as long as we are firing our weapons let it be the same direction.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 13 at 2015 4:40 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 13 Apr 2015 04:40:29 -0400

Seeing a lot of nonsensical pride talk; the answer is no and the reason is that they train to and perform different objectives. Along those lines, Marines shouldn't have been used so heavily in the past decade, since occupation is the Army's job.

Response by SPC Dave Jacobs made Apr 13 at 2015 6:44 AM

SPC Dave Jacobs — Mon, 13 Apr 2015 06:44:50 -0400

Why put "camaraderie and traditions aside for a min."? The definition of ESPRIT DE CORPS is, "the common spirit existing in the members of a group and inspiring enthusiasm, devotion, and strong regard for the honor of the group." Why ask this question?, would be a better question. I served in the Army, but have the highest respect and admiration for ALL branches. Instead of considering this notion, why not conduct more joint training exercises working off of each other's strengths? And while I'm on my soapbox, why even consider the Hagel plan of troop reduction in the face of the tremendous global threats to National security? Come on people get your priorities straight. Out

Response by SSG Kenneth Lanning made Apr 13 at 2015 8:45 AM

SSG Kenneth Lanning — Mon, 13 Apr 2015 08:45:21 -0400

Personally, I think we should disband all Army/Navy/Air Force SPEC OPS and combat arms, disband all Marine Corps non-combat arms, have the Marines take over the combat arms and SPEC OPS functions for ALL branches, have the Army there for land logistical support, and the Navy for sea support and transportation. As far as the Air Force is concerned, pop their inventory over to the Army and Navy, make all of them DoD civilians, and have them in charge of cyber and space command as part of Homeland Security.

Response by CPL Timothy Bell made Apr 13 at 2015 11:40 AM

CPL Timothy Bell — Mon, 13 Apr 2015 11:40:05 -0400

Thanks but no thanks. ArmyStrong!

Response by SFC Alfonso Moore made Apr 13 at 2015 3:40 PM

SFC Alfonso Moore — Mon, 13 Apr 2015 15:40:44 -0400

seems like to me a dumb question will get you a dumb answer.

Response by CPL Jay Freeman made Apr 13 at 2015 5:54 PM

CPL Jay Freeman — Mon, 13 Apr 2015 17:54:32 -0400

Some would say it is like oil and water but that would say one is lesser then the other and this is simply not the case.
The Army is set to put lots of people on the ground quickly and overwhelming force and big open conflict. The Marines have been training for ever on close quarter combat I read an article where the top official for the Marines saw combat roles changing and instead of it staying on open fields it moving into close quarter combat going from house to house and having to move that way plus ships are small and set up for this type of fighting. If I where to deploy the 2 I would have the Army on the out side keeping everyone in and the Marines doing the door to door searches do to the type of training they both have to consolidate would be dumb. The air force separated from the Army essentially taking away there hardware after 9/11 the air force requested army troops to stand watch at the air force basses while all there security forces got deployed. If the 2 would have stayed army air core this may have not happen I have seen lots of stuff go good at first because it seems like a good idea at the time but when it goes wrong the first thing said is well it seems a good idea at that time ike a

Response by MGySgt Tony Lynam made Apr 14 at 2015 8:09 AM

MGySgt Tony Lynam — Tue, 14 Apr 2015 08:09:14 -0400

NO THANK YOU.....

Response by SPC Steven Heinen made Apr 14 at 2015 7:52 PM

SPC Steven Heinen — Tue, 14 Apr 2015 19:52:28 -0400

It is nice to read the responses with some actual perspective and it is always refreshing to read a comment from someone who has broad experience. I simply served as a wheeled vehicle mechanic in a combat engineer battalion conducting route clearance missions. I would not feel comfortable espousing how much greater the Army is over the Marines from my limited 4 year active duty experience in a particular unit. It is just too narrow of an experience and I think it is important to acknowledge that. I understand pride is the root of much of the strong convictions, but the truth lies in the middle as it does in most circumstances. Both branches are successful in what they do and could always learn from each other's strengths. To make a statement regarding the larger question: Should the Army and Marines consolidate? Seems to me the answer is no. There are no high level talks that I know of regarding the issue, thus I come to the conclusion that the individuals entrusted in evaluating such issues/questions have determined it unnecessary in the current and near future DoD structure.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 16 at 2015 9:16 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 16 Apr 2015 21:16:57 -0400

ANALYTIC ANSWER
From what I'm reading, there are a lot of WRONG answers being posted here with a lot of misinformation on both sides of the isle. I have extensive experience with the Marine Air Ground Task Force while working with the other services. I welcome a FRIENDLY debate with anyone. I'll speak on the wave tops as this could be a lengthy post.

The answer is no (a resounding hell no since I'm a Marine). The Marine Corps as a whole is a fast moving, lightly to medium equipped fight force. The Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF) can be broken down from the Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB) Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF), Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU). Each of these will have infantry, logistics and air assets for their respective size. There are a MINIMUM of TWO MEU's deployed at any given time in the world. This gives the president a battalion of Marines to deploy ANYWHERE in the world in 48 hours. This battalion includes tank platoons, supply and air transport and air attack assets. This type of structure is what makes the USMC unique from the Army. The Army is vast, it requires much more time to deploy. Once it gets going there's no stopping the U.S. Army, it's AWESOME what the Army can bring to the fight and their sustainment ability is unreal. BUT, the Marine is designed at the administrative level to the fire team level to be light and fast. The Army does have fast deploying units such as its Rangers and Berets, but they don't bring the complete package like a MEU does. One thing to note about a MEU, it is shadowed by a Navy Carrier Battle Group, this includes an aircraft carrier and all of its support ships. The Army depends much on the Air Force to help move personnel and equipment around.

Secondly the mindsets of the two are very different. I have multiple Army friends (from the lowly PVT2 to a 2 star general) who speak of their admiration for Marines, the discipline, training and professionalism. This isn't to say that the army is deficient in any of those things, but there is a clear war fighting mindset difference in the two. The Marine Corps standards are higher, thus creating a much sharper force with which to work with.

Check this video out on the MAGTF https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YivJpZPJejw

Inside the MAGTF

Here's the full 10-minute documentary of "Inside the Marine Air-Ground Task Force." The Marine Air-Ground Task Force is an assault element which combines the...

Response by SGT Richard H. made Apr 16 at 2015 10:48 PM

SGT Richard H. — Thu, 16 Apr 2015 22:48:55 -0400

In case my first post didn't summarize it...NO.

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 16 at 2015 11:17 PM

SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 16 Apr 2015 23:17:36 -0400

No, two different worlds, mentalities, cultures, ways of life, etc. That's like asking oil and water to water to consilidate into one. Both are effective but will never be one. Two teams, one fight.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 16 at 2015 11:17 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 16 Apr 2015 23:17:54 -0400

Once we overcome everyone's psychological and psychosocial ties (as reflected in the previous comments), we will realize that the merging of the Army and Marine Corps is not only feasible but logical. Think about it:

1. We could respond quickly... AND maintain stability ops.

2. We could cover multiple facets of the battlefield.

3. Air, Ground, and Amphibious warfare capabilities.

4. A well rounded Officer and Enlisted group.

It could easily work, be easily managed, and quickly modified for potential missions.

Pride, tradition, and negativity aside... We can build upon all of our greatest strengths and maximize our overall potential through flexibility, leadership, and education.

Response by PO3 Steve Terrano made Apr 17 at 2015 11:14 AM

PO3 Steve Terrano — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 11:14:11 -0400

only if the Marines are in charge, the army has to many rules in combat and they get people killed. The Marines have rules but this rules combat I believe

Response by CPL Dominic Mancuso made Apr 17 at 2015 11:22 AM

CPL Dominic Mancuso — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 11:22:55 -0400

"traditions" mean nothing int he grand scheme of things... The Air force should be folded into the Army and Navy for logistics sake and the Marine Corps should be shrunk in size to their primary mission of protecting naval vessels and conducting MEU operations. Having standing Marine divisions is a waste of money and resources.

The Army needs to "trim the fat" of its support personnel... Many jobs can be folded together. Make the POG's do more than a 9 to 5 shift to earn their benefits.

Now, that being said I am a Army Infantrymen and I understand the frustration that will come from this statement.

Response by SSG Dave Rogers made Apr 19 at 2015 11:56 AM

SSG Dave Rogers — Sun, 19 Apr 2015 11:56:22 -0400

I think they should consolidate as far as support services goes. Specialty jobs should retain their symbols, awards, badges, dress uniform for tradition. But support services are the same across the board and should be interchangeable.

Response by Cpl Patrick Reade made Apr 21 at 2015 4:53 PM

Cpl Patrick Reade — Tue, 21 Apr 2015 16:53:34 -0400

NOPE.....NO.....NOPE

Response by SrA Kelly Richard made Apr 22 at 2015 7:19 AM

SrA Kelly Richard — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 07:19:54 -0400

No, they have different roles and missions that are clearly defined. We still need X number of people to fulfill this mission or that mission. Consolidation would not save money, even in the long run, Short term, it would cost significantly more.

On a personal level, I'd rather work with Marines any day over Army! The Marines do things that don't make sense, just a lot less often than the Army. I think they issue the Army all the fancy gear and equipment, but the issue Marines half a brain to figure out how to get along with out it.

Response by CW3 Craig Linghor made Apr 22 at 2015 12:03 PM

CW3 Craig Linghor — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 12:03:50 -0400

Why would the Marines lower there standards:) All joking aside this was a serious discussion during the Clinton presidency. Some of you old guy/gals may remember.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 22 at 2015 2:17 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 14:17:23 -0400

No, i earned my eagle, globe and anchor. To consolidate them would basically be like doing the army service ribbon they dont hand out the EGA

Response by SGT Shayne Merritt made Apr 22 at 2015 3:34 PM

SGT Shayne Merritt — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 15:34:23 -0400

Absolutely not... We are two completely different branches with completely different missions... There is a reason our founding fathers formed our military the way they did.. I understand the need to adapt but I also understand the value in heritige and tradition and leasons learned. I believe it would cause great damage and make our military weaker if we combine the two, not to mention the anamosity it would cause between the transitioning Soldiers and Marines.... If it's not broken don't fix it!

Response by CPO David Lamberth made Apr 22 at 2015 7:38 PM

CPO David Lamberth — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 19:38:14 -0400

The mission of the Army and Marines are different. If you don't know that, then look it up. Once you understand the missions of each, then you would know the answer is NO.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 22 at 2015 10:32 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 22:32:11 -0400

Absolutely not. The Marines and the Army have two completely different jobs. Just because they both shoot rifles doesn't mean they can be joined into one service.

Response by MCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 23 at 2015 4:57 PM

MCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 23 Apr 2015 16:57:28 -0400

No, zero reason. Different missions, different need. No more so than the Navy taking over Air Force mission, even though we have our own air forces.

Response by SGT Mike Marino made Apr 25 at 2015 12:25 AM

SGT Mike Marino — Sat, 25 Apr 2015 00:25:17 -0400

Should be 1 Military Police. We all work together and have patrolled together. Except for the Uniform our training and Jobs are the same. I'm a Former Army Military Police Sgt. In the past, I don't know about the present we all patrolled together when deployed. My unit and I have patrolled together with Marine Military Police, Airforce Police etc. Sometimes we policed the Marines while their M.Ps were located miles away with another unit in country etc. The M.P.s I know feel that they rise above all else and Uphold the highest Standards. We Represent the Military conduct and live the values. As we all know uphold and enforce the Uniform code of military Justice. I could see this being The United States Military Police Corps. with a higher consolidated training and knowledge of all the services merging and just being one. Right now, the M.P's are a Duplication of service which is unnecessary. The M.P.Corps Should be under their own budget. and put out their to Police our Military, all of the branches from the same Office.

Response by Capt Mark Strobl made Apr 27 at 2015 2:28 PM

Capt Mark Strobl — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 14:28:37 -0400

The Corps has been successfully fighting for its identity since 10 Nov 1775. Until there is BOTH a financial and doctrinal change in the mission of the Corps AND the Army, we're just going to keep doing this business of war as we have for the last two (plus) centuries.

Response by Cpl Julio Hernandez made Apr 30 at 2015 2:08 AM

Cpl Julio Hernandez — Thu, 30 Apr 2015 02:08:56 -0400

NO!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 30 at 2015 3:42 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 30 Apr 2015 15:42:35 -0400

So I just came across this post and felt the need to answer. Why would we combine the Navy's fighting force? Regardless of how they feel about themselves, there IS NO Department of the Marines. They work for the Navy. They are transported on Navy equipment and they get their officers from the Navy. It works, to combine the two different departments would be foolhardy. The Army does not understand Navy stuff (the only reason I do is I did some Navy time before going Army).
All of this being said, the Marines have their own traditions which have been mentioned in a lot of posts previous.

Response by SSG John Erny made Apr 30 at 2015 3:53 PM

SSG John Erny — Thu, 30 Apr 2015 15:53:31 -0400

A common logistics corps would may work fine, and probably save a lot of money at the same time. Leave the rest alone.

Response by CH (MAJ) William Beaver made May 6 at 2015 1:32 PM

CH (MAJ) William Beaver — Wed, 06 May 2015 13:32:50 -0400

NO. Two distinct mission sets. Two different types of Servicemembers

Response by SSgt Maurice Johnson made May 6 at 2015 2:54 PM

SSgt Maurice Johnson — Wed, 06 May 2015 14:54:05 -0400

Absolutely not, the real question is should any branch of the military be under direct presidential jurisdiction and the answer is no. The problem would only be compounded by placing the Army under direct command and control of public official...who has questionable allegences.

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made May 12 at 2015 11:21 AM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 12 May 2015 11:21:51 -0400

If I learned one thing from this discussion, it would be that Marines REALLY need to get off their high horse.

Response by SPC Charles Brown made May 12 at 2015 11:32 AM

SPC Charles Brown — Tue, 12 May 2015 11:32:37 -0400

Only when the Air Force learns how to fly submarines.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made May 17 at 2015 8:10 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 17 May 2015 08:10:51 -0400

Cross train, perhaps.
Consolidate, no!

Response by MSgt Stephanie McCalister made May 17 at 2015 8:37 AM

MSgt Stephanie McCalister — Sun, 17 May 2015 08:37:27 -0400

I can't answer the question well from a technical or historical standpoint, so I'll relate a personal anecdote for consideration while mulling over the 'purpose' instilled & trained for into our various service branches:

I have a 5'2" disabled Marine veteran friend, she had a break-in while she was in her bedroom working from home via computer ... she took the 6' plus guy out of action with her cane, then stood over him as she dialed 911 ... he CRAWLED out of the house on his back crab fashion trying to get away from her then took off ... cops laughed themselves silly taking the report ... while congratulating her on her capabilities ...

I was Army & Air Force, & I can assure you ... my 911 dialing skills, one-handed, are phenomenal, I've had to use them myself during an attack of similar magnitude ... but best I could do was fend off the attacker enough to not get killed as I was dialing ... fortunately he departed once he realized help was on the way ...

I've ZERO question which one of us had the better military training physically & psychologically speaking ...

It's all about attitude & training ...

My friend, she's a MARINE through & through ... 'once a Marine, always a Marine' ... me? I'm a disabled Army/Air Force veteran who proudly served ... we both consider ourselves proud of our service & our only regrets is our inability to have continued serving ... and we're great friends, ribbing each other all the time in good-natured fashion ... but having one another's backs through thick & thin ...

She could call me in for support & backup, I would call her in for rescue & support ... we work well together ... but I'd have never made a Marine, and she never wanted to be anything else.

But, I think I make better coffee!

Response by SGT David T. made May 17 at 2015 1:25 PM

SGT David T. — Sun, 17 May 2015 13:25:22 -0400

Honestly I think this idea needs to be expanded to all services. I think a single unified service is the best way to increase efficiency and reduce redundancy. Back in the days of sailing ships it made sense to have the services separate because sea and land warfare rarely touched each other. In the current joint warfighting environment, it makes sense to have a single unified command. But really the only way this will work is if the new service found a way to integrate the best traditions of the current services. But honestly this idea will not be adopted due to the massive resistance of the traditionalists.

Response by SSG Kevin McCulley made May 17 at 2015 2:34 PM

SSG Kevin McCulley — Sun, 17 May 2015 14:34:58 -0400

I think it makes more more significant since to roll the Air Force back into the Army..

Response by SFC Robert Wheeler made May 17 at 2015 4:31 PM

SFC Robert Wheeler — Sun, 17 May 2015 16:31:26 -0400

Many of the world's forces are consolidated under one roof. Separate command structures above the largest field organizations were eliminated. This allows them to streamline a lot of support operations while having the ability to mix and match capabilities based on the mission.

Response by CPO Joseph Grant made May 17 at 2015 5:00 PM

CPO Joseph Grant — Sun, 17 May 2015 17:00:16 -0400

No. All four services five canning the Coast Guard have a different mission. The Army does still operate a couple shifts if I understand correctly. Why not make the Army part of the Navy? Simply put, it makes no sense.

In the Submarine Force a group of officers decided to combine rates. After all, if one division turns a wrench, what's different about another division turning a wrench. To put in Army terms, a rifleman fires on the enemy and so does a tanker. Therefore there's no difference. See, makes no sense.

Response by SGT Mark Sullivan made May 17 at 2015 7:54 PM

SGT Mark Sullivan — Sun, 17 May 2015 19:54:03 -0400

No, they are not meant to be combined. They both have separate missions. Now, that being said, their traning should be closely resemble each other.

Response by Sgt David G Duchesneau made May 18 at 2015 2:04 PM

Sgt David G Duchesneau — Mon, 18 May 2015 14:04:32 -0400

This is nothing but a "shit storm" and a waste of time because is isn't going to happen. Not in my life time! We can discuss and debate this until we are blue in the face, but all in all, in the end, it is not happening! Somebody please change the subject! This one is getting old! SEMPER FI!

Response by PO2 Joseph Ward made May 18 at 2015 3:12 PM

PO2 Joseph Ward — Mon, 18 May 2015 15:12:50 -0400

I am a two service veteran. I don't understand why my original service (USCG) is not consolidated into the USN. I don't understand why every service, including the USCG, has elite infantry forces. I don't understand why the navy, marines, army, and USCG fly! There should be three services; air, ground, and sea. Army, Navy, Air Force. That will put a bunch of generals and admirals out of work, but will save money in the long run.

Response by SGT Kim Dixon made May 18 at 2015 5:24 PM

SGT Kim Dixon — Mon, 18 May 2015 17:24:56 -0400

Absolutely not, I have been an active duty Marine and I retired from the Army, three of my kids are Marines and one went into the Army.
The point im trying to make is day light and darkness. There is a pride and a sense of duty that is instilled in every Marine not so much on the Army side. The Army is more of a occupational force, where as Marines are a smaller force.

Response by CMDCM Richard Moon made May 18 at 2015 5:31 PM

CMDCM Richard Moon — Mon, 18 May 2015 17:31:13 -0400

I reject your premise on just about every level. I'll start with your ending comment - "taunting about USN and USAF consolidation" - they are so dissimilar that in doing so would serve what purpose?

Here's my take - when you centralize, you lose the inherent and necessary differences in each service, be it culture, be it history, mission, equipment and ethos. The mission of the Marines, as is the Navy - btw, they are intermixed and necessary to each other, which is why they comprise the Department of the Navy - is expeditionary. They are there with the gear when you need them.

The Army is not capable of anything remotely similar without massive airlift (a diminishing resource). Airborne units are by definition light infantry, and while they may get into theater quickly, provided it's permissive, they can't bring to the fight what the Marines can on the first day. The Army brings heavy units and sustainability, as does the Navy, but to think or suggest the Army and the Marines have similar missions is ridiculous.

Response by SGT Richard Blue made May 18 at 2015 5:56 PM

SGT Richard Blue — Mon, 18 May 2015 17:56:34 -0400

From a functional standpoint combining the US Army and US Marine Corps. will work. Instead of mixing units with some Marines and some Soldiers in each unit, it would make sense to have 2 or 3 additional specialized amphibious divisions added to the Army. Doing this would keep the light, fast and amphibious capabilities the Marines provide without changing the training that enables these abilities. Just look at the Army now. We have mountain units, airborne units, cold weather units, air assault units, special operations units, etc. It wouldn’t be a big deal to create a light, fast and amphibious capability within the best army in the world!

Response by LTC William Eisaman made May 18 at 2015 6:12 PM

LTC William Eisaman — Mon, 18 May 2015 18:12:00 -0400

Yes they should combine stronger military would be the end result

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 18 at 2015 7:58 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 18 May 2015 19:58:05 -0400

NO, I do not believe ANY combination of services would be good for the service members. It may be good for the gov't and the accountants but I do not care about them. I do not care if it makes it easier for some guy to figure out a pay or supply issue I do not care if it makes it easier for some pog to organize a training mission with another service. Combining the service at all is the start of the end.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 18 at 2015 8:06 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 18 May 2015 20:06:17 -0400

I would offer that the Marine Corps has unique mission set and is fully integrated into the Navy for support of their operations. Consolidating them with the Army would rob them of their expeditionary capability. It would also make it extremely difficult for them to train on amphibious operations as the Army doesn't own enough watercraft to train large-scale amphibious assaults. Therefore Marines would have to relly on the Army for administrative and logistical support while being embedded with the Navy for their wartime mission. Therefore the Marines and the Army are akin to oranges and tangerines and couldn't fully integrate effectively.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made May 18 at 2015 9:37 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 18 May 2015 21:37:54 -0400

If this is about saving money then the U.S. Military should have one standard camouflage uniform. As far as the Army and USMC to become one this like asking an apple and orange to become one. Those two branches serve a different role in the fighting force. That is like asking the USAF to merge with the USN the Navy has two roles as the USAF as one (that is to fly)

Response by SGT Edward Perez made May 19 at 2015 3:19 AM

SGT Edward Perez — Tue, 19 May 2015 03:19:47 -0400

Why would Army and Marines merge. What would be the point?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 19 at 2015 10:49 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 19 May 2015 10:49:58 -0400

I remember many years ago being jokingly told by a Marine Gunny what ARMY stood for (Ain't Real Marines Yet).

Even before reading some of the responses here, I figured that it wouldn't go too well. After reading a few of them, it's gone about like I thought it would.

Response by SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 19 at 2015 2:35 PM

SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 19 May 2015 14:35:58 -0400

I think as we move forward the industrial warfare that the Army and Marines provide will become less of a priority for the defense of the nation. Like or not, Cyber warfare is where we need to be focused. Having said that, whether the Army and Marines consolidate or not may not be the appropriate question. Whichever service leads in Cyber warfare will become the deciding factor in who consolidates with whom. I believe the Air Force may have the edge. So my question is; Are you all ready to consolidate with us???

Response by LCpl Luke Vega made May 19 at 2015 3:46 PM

LCpl Luke Vega — Tue, 19 May 2015 15:46:15 -0400

Ahh...HELL NO!!!

Response by CDR Michael Goldschmidt made May 19 at 2015 5:05 PM

CDR Michael Goldschmidt — Tue, 19 May 2015 17:05:54 -0400

I would go one step further. I would stop abusing Marines and SEALs by deploying them away from oceans and waterways and involving them in long-term occupation operations, which is clearly an Army function. (Of course, strictly and Constitutionally speaking, we're not supposed to have standing armies, and no military appropriations are to be for more than 2 years, but when's the last time that was respected?) Marines are supposed to be seaborne shock troops. The only services I MIGHT consolidate are certain elements of the various services' air arms, but then they would all have to train for shipboard operations, which makes sense, at least to come aboard in emergencies or to save aircraft with battle damage and their crews.

Response by 1stSgt Russell Harrington made May 19 at 2015 5:40 PM

1stSgt Russell Harrington — Tue, 19 May 2015 17:40:32 -0400

No! I have served with both components and they bring separate and unique options to the battlefield. Marines possess a history deep in tradition and pride...do not try to wallpaper it. This transition is much different than the separation of the Army Air Corp to the USAF....different elements were brought about. Marines are quick, Armies are sustaining.....keep it that way.

Response by 2LT Irene Mason made May 19 at 2015 9:10 PM

2LT Irene Mason — Tue, 19 May 2015 21:10:04 -0400

Having served in both, I can answer objectively. First, they have different missions. The Army is there for large campaigns and needs Congress to declare war to kick some butt. The Marines are the 911 force. They were designed to move in short bursts and can be deployed in very short term at the direction of the President. See how that happened? You need each. Both are fighting in the current wars, but the fundamental difference is still valid for other engagements. Really, this post seems like more of a troll than a question.

Response by Capt Michael Halpin made May 20 at 2015 12:05 AM

Capt Michael Halpin — Wed, 20 May 2015 00:05:27 -0400

There are many differences between the Marines and the Army. Attitude is just one, training is another. The country is well served by the mystique of the Marines. The country as well as both services would lose something if both are combined into one service. It almost impossible to explain but Soldiers and Marines know it to be true. Politicians and civilians will never understand this.

Response by CPL Ron Williams made May 20 at 2015 5:22 PM

CPL Ron Williams — Wed, 20 May 2015 17:22:27 -0400

I could see some parts of the two branches coming together but at the same time staying identified as army or marine fields like infantry and artillery

Response by LTC Nancy Bodyk (Retired) made May 20 at 2015 7:31 PM

LTC Nancy Bodyk (Retired) — Wed, 20 May 2015 19:31:45 -0400

I have been telling my co-workers for years that the separate Services should be consolidated into one with a ground, air, and sea component. One, it would save the taxpayers’ a lot of money. Instead of each Service having their own communications equipment that doesn’t always work together well, there would be one communications equipment set and no need to worry about integrating four different communications packages. Instead of the Army and Marines having different armored platforms they have the same tank. The same with helicopters and aircraft. Two, it would streamline the Services since we are downsizing. It would also make them more efficient. Third, we can all wear the same uniform instead of wasting tons of money on different ones. We all used to wear the BDUs.

Response by SN Greg Wright made May 20 at 2015 11:07 PM

SN Greg Wright — Wed, 20 May 2015 23:07:19 -0400

Absolutely not. And tradition is entirely my reason. 300 years of it. It's built into their dna, it effects their psyche, their mentality, the way they associate with one another. Their very synergy. It cannot be removed as an issue in order to 'objectively' examine this idea. It just can't.

I feel the same thing about the Navy. 300 years of tradition...I love all of that shit, it made it interesting, fun, educational. It makes you feel like you're part of something larger, not just an organization, but an ENTITY with a life of it's own, stretching back centuries.

So no. Leave them alone. Anyway, they're already rolled into the Navy.

Response by SPC(P) Mark Newman made May 21 at 2015 12:26 AM

SPC(P) Mark Newman — Thu, 21 May 2015 00:26:55 -0400

I think these are two VERY different cultures. How would that be addressed? The Army could probably stand becoming more like The Marines but will Marines be forced to be more like the Army? The Corps has more discipline, more widespread traditions practiced among all ranks, a closer lifelong camradery w each other compared to soldiers. Just my opinion, obviously, but I think culturally the Marines would be especially resistant.

Response by LTJG Eric Govreau made May 21 at 2015 6:27 PM

LTJG Eric Govreau — Thu, 21 May 2015 18:27:14 -0400

After 240 years, some degree of institutional mind-set is going to occur. Emotionally speaking, the traditions of all the services are different and just cannot be cast aside.

Objectively thinking, and judging by the responses, this has occurred to no one, but here are some points to think about...

First off, we are pretty much all part of the same team, and that is called the Department of Defense. Which, is a misnomer in of itself, as NONE of the services of the DOD can be used in the defense of the United States (posse comitatus act). In fact, up until shortly after WWII, it was called the War Department. Not since the US Civil war has our military conducted military operations on US soil (PCA was written into law in the 1870's). All operations have been aimed at protecting our allies and interests overseas.

Traditionally speaking, the AUS has been considered an invasion and occupation army, while the USMC is specialized in amphibious assault. However, consider the two largest amphibious invasions of the past century. One was conducted by three divisions of Marines (3rd, 4th, and 5th MDs), while the other was conducted by three Army divisions (1st, 4th and 29th IDs). Not taking away from the 101st and the 82nd ABD's, but they didn't come across on boats.

Now, look at Iraqi Freedom...both the Army and the Marines were used, as land infantry, coming up from the south. And made better time than expected, but it seems that someone in the IRG must have read Sun Tzu, as it resulted in a bitter insurgency for the next 5-odd years.

Frankly, this question always seems to come up in times of military recession. But do we really want to be like Red China (yes, I said it), and have all of the 'ancillary' services fall subordinate to the Army?

Response by HN Private RallyPoint Member made May 22 at 2015 1:25 PM

HN Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 22 May 2015 13:25:41 -0400

No, they were both designed to do different things. The Marines are also a part of the Department of the Navy for a reason. Lastly, we all know that the Army is funded more than the Marines. The Army is the bigger part of our military force besides the Navy. That being said.. politics would probably argue that the Army should train the same and that is just wrong. No insult intended. Plus, one of our great qualities is the heritage of our branches. Every branch thinks they are better than the other and it makes a playful competition; which raises morale in every branch. Things operate very well as it is. Don't fix something if it ain't broke.

Response by PO1 Jack Smith made May 25 at 2015 2:12 PM

PO1 Jack Smith — Mon, 25 May 2015 14:12:58 -0400

No marines are part of the Navy. Are biggest land arm. Army don't train is some fundamental training that Maines do. Ones on the ground they work much the same. But how they get their sometime a lot different

Response by SGT Anthony Rossi made May 29 at 2015 2:04 AM

SGT Anthony Rossi — Fri, 29 May 2015 02:04:37 -0400

No, I don't have time for the Marine corp ego. I don't need the fancy uniforms.

Response by SGT Anthony Rossi made May 29 at 2015 2:06 AM

SGT Anthony Rossi — Fri, 29 May 2015 02:06:15 -0400

No I joined the army so I could stay on the land. I'm not a big fan of salt water.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 29 at 2015 5:24 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 29 May 2015 05:24:54 -0400

It drives me at how arrogant some of you Marines are to think that you are more proud than a Soldier or better trained than a Soldier, or even better, more disciplined than a Soldier. I believe that I earned my titles through blood, sweat, and tears just as some of you believe. I do believe that we watch our brothers and sisters in arms die on the battlefield just as Marines. It's OK to be proud of your corp, but not ok to belittle those with whom I serve to express your pride. I have respect for all branches of services because we all make the same sacrifices. I served as an Army Drill Sergeant for almost 3 years and trained a plethora of former Marines. My greatest challenge was getting them to qualify on an M16A2 rifle. Targets are a bit harder to hit when they are moving. I for one am proud to be an American Soldier and I will not allow any other branch to believe that they are more proud than I, nor will I ever say that I am more proud than you. Answer the question that was asked and keep your arrogant branch bashing comments to yourselves.

Response by LTJG Eric Govreau made May 31 at 2015 7:57 PM

LTJG Eric Govreau — Sun, 31 May 2015 19:57:55 -0400

I brought this conversation up with a Former Marine that I know, and his response was this (loosely paraphrased):

The Marine Corp is a truly expeditionary force (nothing was mentioned of the amphibious capability) that the president can order anywhere in the world without being required of informing congress (or have congressional approval) beforehand, where he does not have that luxury with the Army.

Response by PO1 Donald Hammond made Jun 1 at 2015 7:00 PM

PO1 Donald Hammond — Mon, 01 Jun 2015 19:00:50 -0400

Oh come on. Esprit de corps is best in the Marines? Nah. Try submariners. Hey, we shoot marines out of our subs. lol

Okay okay. They could be combined but still be seperate. Much like Navy/Marines are now. Just Army/Marines. But the Marines were meant to be a fighting force based on the sea and the Army a fighting force based on land.

To look at this whole thing, why not combine the Air Force with the Navy fighters etc?

The more realistic scenario would be to combine all the forces under one umbrella. Then we could have air, sea, and land forces with smaller divisions under that. Like fast reaction, sustained occupation etc.

Army and Marine corps differences are like the Navy's surface fleet and submarine force. The same but different in key ways. So consolidation is possible, but not recommended in the case of Army/Marines.

Response by Sgt Steven Martin made Jun 6 at 2015 7:30 AM

Sgt Steven Martin — Sat, 06 Jun 2015 07:30:13 -0400

Hell NO!

Response by SGT Jared Stoops made Jun 6 at 2015 12:29 PM

SGT Jared Stoops — Sat, 06 Jun 2015 12:29:50 -0400

The Army does not function the way the Marine Corps does. Marines are set up and trained to rapidly gain ground. While the army is set to hold it. I could see both merging under a common name and bureaucracy but it would take decades to streamline. The only thing gained would be better branch to branch coordination. But just as we would unite we (different branches) think and assault differently and I'm not sure that eliminating another mind on the battlefield. Keeping us separate makes us unique in our fighting styles and tactics and a more worthy opponent.

Response by TSgt Kenneth Ellis made Jun 6 at 2015 12:36 PM

TSgt Kenneth Ellis — Sat, 06 Jun 2015 12:36:33 -0400

The question should be this. They all have planes. should we just have one big Air Force.

Response by MSgt Mike Brown; MBTI-CP; MA, Ph.D. made Jun 12 at 2015 8:06 PM

MSgt Mike Brown; MBTI-CP; MA, Ph.D. — Fri, 12 Jun 2015 20:06:57 -0400

No Disrespect to Soldiers (comrades in arms), but why -- what's the point? Have you researched the mission of the USMC and the U.S. Army? Why is this important to you?, when compared to veteran issues, transition, and not to mention the pride of belonging to your branch of service...

Response by SMSgt Tee Rogers made Jun 18 at 2015 4:11 PM

SMSgt Tee Rogers — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 16:11:52 -0400

short answer: no. Working together to utilize the best skills of each service is not the same as consolidation of branches. Too much of great value will be forever lost...and I'm not referring to historical customs or courtesies.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 18 at 2015 7:40 PM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 19:40:52 -0400

No.

Response by SFC John Trujillo made Jun 18 at 2015 7:43 PM

SFC John Trujillo — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 19:43:56 -0400

Keep them separate so we don't destroy what is good about each of them.

Response by Cpl John M Dutrow made Jun 18 at 2015 9:07 PM

Cpl John M Dutrow — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 21:07:24 -0400

Hell no the MARINES are the navy's inf. there job is to take and hold advanced base for the navy.Look what China is doing in south China Sea.

Response by SSgt Scott Schwerman made Jun 25 at 2015 9:37 PM

SSgt Scott Schwerman — Thu, 25 Jun 2015 21:37:23 -0400

2 different missions and states of readiness

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 26 at 2015 2:49 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 02:49:13 -0400

What about just consolidating certain aspects, like medical, police, warrior transition units.

Response by GySgt Ronald Bacote made Jul 7 at 2015 8:41 PM

GySgt Ronald Bacote — Tue, 07 Jul 2015 20:41:52 -0400

We are all one team .

Response by SFC Robert Wheeler made Jul 17 at 2015 9:52 AM

SFC Robert Wheeler — Fri, 17 Jul 2015 09:52:18 -0400

Consolidation makes perfect sense and works in other countries. Let's eliminate separate logistics and command channels. Let's standardize everything from communication protocols to uniforms, awards, and standards. The liner battle concept is dead and gone. The current future and present enemy is not going to have a coast to invade or a country to land in. We need a flexible, adaptable force that is lighter weight on the support side and efficient on the battle side.

Response by Cpl Toby Dodd made Jul 18 at 2015 12:41 PM

Cpl Toby Dodd — Sat, 18 Jul 2015 12:41:40 -0400

Answer practically without putting down either one of them? Fuck you, Fuck no. If any of you want to "consolidate", you can join my Corps. Carry on.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 18 at 2015 1:04 PM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 18 Jul 2015 13:04:34 -0400

The problem I foresee with consolidation of any of the branches of service lies in the background of the top brass, and how it shapes their priorities. I will elaborate using the Air Force returning to the Army as an example.

Currently, our Air Force has a diverse mission. Yes, we were once under the Army. However, our current leaders have evolved in a world where their concerns fall primarily in the realm of air superiority. While the Army does have air assets, the leadership has grown accustomed to putting the interests of the ground war first and foremost in their agendas (as they well should).

Should we combine services, in this case Air Force and Army, we lose some of the valuable input that comes from years of experience managing and engaging the enemy from a specialized angle. As of today, our Air Force receives and allocates their portion of the budget to maintain air superiority, allowing the Army to invest their portion on building the most capable ground forces for today's conflicts. Would an Army General, focused on his infantry background and seeing lesser value in advanced air weapon systems, fairly divide a budget to now include cyber programs and upgrades to airframes that are already struggling to stay in the air? Would he speak to Congress with as much knowledge about issues like saving the A-10? The current division of military missions ensures that each capability receives an advocate in a world where budgets are getting smaller and smaller each day, and each advocate is able to become slightly more knowledgeable and passionate about the service which they represent.

Where can we make cuts and combine services? We are already seeing positions in personnel and medical facilities fade away. In these jobs that essentially perform the same function across the services, perhaps we can structure a command that provides streamlined training and one office to handle the needs across the board. For example, does a Joint base need two finance offices, two medical centers, separate dining facilities, and separate JAG offices. Probably not. Perhaps, instead of combining the missions altogether, certain general regulations can be adapted to create a separate combined military support function and reduce the amount of "recreating the wheel" we see in those support areas.

Response by GySgt Moses Lozano made Jul 22 at 2015 10:27 PM

GySgt Moses Lozano — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 22:27:10 -0400

Heck no. Each service has their own strengths and purpose which has proven their effectiveness in current and past wars. This is just another idea that has bureaucracy written all over it. Instead of focusing on consolidation, more effort should be put into maintaining our forces better!

Response by SPC Elaine Brown made Jul 25 at 2015 11:22 PM

SPC Elaine Brown — Sat, 25 Jul 2015 23:22:39 -0400

I say no.
The Marines and the Army have different jobs. To the outside they seem to be the same, but they are not. Marines are the a part of the Navy; they are not the Navy, but a very important part of it. The definition of Marine is "one of a class of naval troops serving both on shipboard and on land" however the definition of Army is "the military forces of a nation, exclusive of the navy and in some countries the air force". Having said that the most important thing to remember is that all branches of the Military have distinct and vital roles.

Response by CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 27 at 2015 2:30 AM

CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 02:30:34 -0400

POI Jacob Dronzin, You must be joking Right? Did you know that every year since the beginning of the Marine Corps on Nov. 10, 1775, that the Army and the Navy wanted to get rid of the Marine Corps? Do you know why our NCO's, Staff NCO's and Officers wear Blood Stripes on our Trousers? Because we the Marines had earn them while in combat. JK

Response by SPC Katherine Karpinski made Jul 31 at 2015 7:37 AM

SPC Katherine Karpinski — Fri, 31 Jul 2015 07:37:11 -0400

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 31 at 2015 7:58 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 31 Jul 2015 07:58:35 -0400

I think it is worth looking at. But then I'd re-arrange a lot of things, if I were in charge. The Army would learn to work from ships, and we'd have an "amphibious" specialty badge like the "airborne" and "air assault" badges. The Navy would retain a smaller Naval Infantry Corps for boarding and boarder repelling, dockside security and so on. A lot of USMC personnel would not stand for this, I recognize that.

Ideally, I'd also give the Army access to fixed-wing aircraft and bring back the Army Air Corps again, and leave the mission of strategic missions (bombers and airlift) as well as supersonic capability, air dominance and high-altitude interception with the Air Force while the Army Air Corps sticks with CAS and tactical, theater-wide operations.

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Aug 3 at 2015 7:57 AM

SSgt Alex Robinson — Mon, 03 Aug 2015 07:57:32 -0400

It would make sense but the turf wars would be tremendous.

Response by SGT William Howell made Aug 3 at 2015 12:05 PM

SGT William Howell — Mon, 03 Aug 2015 12:05:46 -0400

From a history perspective I don't think it would work. There was a small detachment of Marines were ready to land on the beaches of Normandy to rescue some soldiers that were bogged down. The Army commander refused the Marines help and order them to stay on ship. Or so the rumor goes. They are two different missions and they should remain apart.

Response by SFC Nikhil Kumra made Aug 7 at 2015 7:01 AM

SFC Nikhil Kumra — Fri, 07 Aug 2015 07:01:09 -0400

I've always been a fan of this idea. It would save millions each year, billions over the long run....

Which I'm sorry, but is more important than tradition sometimes.

Sometimes I hear complaints about losing out on pensions and PX's, but here is probably a way to cut so much spending out of the overall budget, and merge budgets, to where service members can have more than what they had during the good old "we don't need no stinking budget" GWOT years....

Response by 1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 7 at 2015 9:09 AM

1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 07 Aug 2015 09:09:35 -0400

No, the traditions are unique and each branch actually has a different mission. Leave us as a separate service, thank you very much.

Response by CWO2 Shelby DuBois made Aug 7 at 2015 10:20 AM

CWO2 Shelby DuBois — Fri, 07 Aug 2015 10:20:29 -0400

If you have to ask then you'll never understand.

Response by Cpl Kent Mitchell made Aug 8 at 2015 3:39 PM

Cpl Kent Mitchell — Sat, 08 Aug 2015 15:39:33 -0400

Not just no, but hell no.

Response by SFC Lee Flowers made Aug 21 at 2015 11:17 AM

SFC Lee Flowers — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 11:17:50 -0400

Being in the Corp and the USA (retired), I don't see one reason why it could not work. Traditions have absolutely nothing to do with it. The history will always be there, just preserve it going forward. And the missions could stay the same.....why not? Going through P.I. in 1967, assigned to A 1/9 in Dong Ha.............Vietnam in 67 & 68, six yrs in the Corp and eighteen in the USA........sorry to tell you jar heads this but, the special units in the USA are just as tough, just as bad, just as good and elite as recon is. The biggest difference between branches are, all the Marines are tougher on the average than that of on the average soldier. The Marines can be more specialized because of their less strength in size. But to compare Recon unit with a Ranger unit or a Special Forces...........not a whole lot of difference as far as elite is concern.
I think it would be good for both branches......................each could benefit each other, and much more cost efficient as well.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 21 at 2015 11:45 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 11:45:16 -0400

I asked my close friend and co-worker (Marine) about this once...His response mirrored most of what I'm seeing here and didn't surprise me :) We throw around a lot of jibes, but I'll be honest-the Marines are an elite fraternity with a very rich and well-earned individuality that would not be a universal fit for the other services.

That said...

The notion that from an operations, training and manning basis, combining specific roles makes sense...well...makes sense. Here's the rub; the Army is a large organization designed to hold objectives as well as take them. The Marines are a smaller force designed to rapidly deploy and seize objectives. In a similar manner, while the Navy and Air Force both have aviation capabilities, the Air Force is structured to operate from fixed, strategic sites, while the Navy is designed to rapidly establish a temporary strategic presence close to the objective. Both provide support/sustainment for the other services. In a truly "Mahanian" battle-space, that works fine...but two decades of regional, non-conventional conflict have altered that. With dwindling budgets and radically divergent mission profiles, we've seen Marine, Army, Naval and Air Force personnel and equipment being tasked across these lines.

If the answer is any form of consolidation, then it MUST include raising the entirety of the services to a universal and HIGHER standard. That presents several problems, most notably money and "emotion"...Can we afford to train all personnel to be equally proficient? Even if we could, what is the overall effect of taking personnel trained for ground combat and deploying them on a ship for six to nine months? Does the "elite" nature of a unit become less when it's individuality is decreased?

My own opinion is that notions like these create larger problems than they solve. Look at what "multi-tasking" has done to tactical fighter aircraft over the years. We want a weapon that can be both tactical and strategic...conventional and non-conventional. American politicians want to fund programs that "do it all". The reality is that we exist as separate services and units for a reason-and that is to be "experts" rather than "Jack's of All Trades".

IMHO

Response by SPC(P) Mark Newman made Aug 21 at 2015 4:47 PM

SPC(P) Mark Newman — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 16:47:05 -0400

A comment posted to the wrong discussion; sorry.

Response by LTC William Eisaman made Aug 27 at 2015 1:23 PM

LTC William Eisaman — Thu, 27 Aug 2015 13:23:00 -0400

Two different branch's of the Armed Forces Army and Marines could never co-exist trust me Marines are hard nosed SOB's and have there own personal rules and agenda.

Response by SN Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 28 at 2015 5:53 PM

SN Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 17:53:19 -0400

I do ont believe they should consolidate, and personally hold that witht the marines being a department of the navy that it stay that way. also, the lives and atmosphere of marines and army are completley different. it also seems, to me atleast, that marines are usually the first in then army comes with a push broom to clean up whats left.

Response by Sgt Toby Martinez made Aug 31 at 2015 10:23 PM

Sgt Toby Martinez — Mon, 31 Aug 2015 22:23:35 -0400

we marines are proud of who we are.the few the proud say's it all

Response by PO1 Cliff Heath made Oct 22 at 2015 5:39 PM

PO1 Cliff Heath — Thu, 22 Oct 2015 17:39:43 -0400

WHILE IT SOUNDS LIKE IT MAY MAKE SENSE EXCEPT FOR JSOC I DO NOT THINK YOU FIND MANY MARINES WILLING TO BE ABSORBED BY THE ARMY I JUST DON'T SEE IT

Response by Cpl Craig Robinson made Nov 5 at 2015 1:42 PM

Cpl Craig Robinson — Thu, 05 Nov 2015 13:42:15 -0500

No to the 100th power, wouldn't happen anyway but good discussion.

Response by PV2 Harry Swensen made Nov 5 at 2015 6:16 PM

PV2 Harry Swensen — Thu, 05 Nov 2015 18:16:55 -0500

NO.

Response by LCpl Kenneth Heath made Nov 5 at 2015 9:31 PM

LCpl Kenneth Heath — Thu, 05 Nov 2015 21:31:14 -0500

Not only no, but F*CK NO!!!
Each were designed to fulfill a purpose, anyone who thinks this is a good idea needs to mix the frosting into the cake batter and then bake it and see what they get!

Response by Cpl Robert Clark made Dec 11 at 2015 2:46 PM

Cpl Robert Clark — Fri, 11 Dec 2015 14:46:53 -0500

Response by MAJ Thomas Person made Jan 7 at 2016 3:47 AM

MAJ Thomas Person — Thu, 07 Jan 2016 03:47:49 -0500

BLUF: Will not happen for the following reasons: Staying away from the valid arguments of tradition and ethos and I am sure it has been sprinkled through this forum but the Marines has been maintained as a expeditionary force that is part of the nations quick and 24/7power projection arm of our operational and strategic plans. The Army is a campaign arm. It takes over from the bridgeheads or foothold that fights a campaign. Look at the meaning of a land campaign and you will find a use of Marine forces in SUPPORT of the campaign The Marines are not designed or intended for leading campaign because they are expeditionary. Remembering the Marines ideas of The right way the wrong way and the Marine way we all should be reticent. (relax Devils, it was a joke). Lets talk about the Army's inability to meet their requirements. I bet the JSCP is a mess with the current "leadership". Or the Navy shrinking it's fleets in order to give China hegemony in the Pacific Rim. Intentional?

Response by Cpl Robert Masi made Jan 7 at 2016 3:14 PM

Cpl Robert Masi — Thu, 07 Jan 2016 15:14:21 -0500

For some reason this question keeps popping up.....And as a Marine, I always said no. But, the only way I see this working, is if all the standards were raised to Marine Standards, including ALL TRAINING, TEST SCORES, AND PT STANDARDS.....That's the only way it'll work. But the reality is that most people in the Army wouldn't be able to meet Marine Standards. That's why they're in the Army in the first place.....So the Army and Liberals would scream "That's not fair that the Standards are so High", they'd tank the Standards so EVERYONE COULD EASILY GET IN, and our Military Fighting Force would be comprised of Snot-Nosed Mouth Breathers...Which, in my estimate, is exactly what the Left wants, a lot of dead American bodies....Hell, that's why they keep lowering the standards so women can get into all the MOS's

Response by Sgt Daniel Lehman made Jan 14 at 2016 11:52 AM

Sgt Daniel Lehman — Thu, 14 Jan 2016 11:52:24 -0500

No offense to the Petty Officer who wrote this, but when I saw this question posted, I thought to myself - "There is no way that a Marine posted that..." How did I know? Again, no offense to any of the other services, but for reasons that only Marines would understand. And THAT, my friends, is why the Army and Marine Corps will never consolidate.

Response by LTC Marc King made Jan 28 at 2016 11:43 AM

LTC Marc King — Thu, 28 Jan 2016 11:43:35 -0500

There is more than enough social engineering going on in the services today. Gender neutrality, LGBT and god knows what else they are tinkering with. This one is clear cut -- leave it alone. Marines do what Marines do and the Army does what the Army does so stop screwing around and stay focused on how you are going to deal with soldiers and marines who are not sure who they are man, woman or other. The Marines and the Army do not suffer from mission identity crisis... please don't generate one.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 31 at 2016 4:55 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 31 Jan 2016 16:55:46 -0500

No. The Army and the Marines both have a mission as part of the Armed Forces.

Response by SSG Jeremy Kohlwes made May 4 at 2016 6:03 PM

SSG Jeremy Kohlwes — Wed, 04 May 2016 18:03:05 -0400

Noooo, coming from an actual Army Infantry guy, we do things differently. And our overall purpose is different. Marines are trained to be a combat force that plugs in well with the Navy. The Army trains to take over a land based target, set up long term supply lines, and occupy.

Response by Sgt Steven Martin made May 6 at 2016 7:44 AM

Sgt Steven Martin — Fri, 06 May 2016 07:44:54 -0400

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 10 at 2016 5:46 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 May 2016 17:46:46 -0400

Phew...I've thought of this time and time again, and here's the short answer: only if the US Marine Corps completely mirrors the Royal Marines Commando in mission, structure, and training. If all Marines were made to go through the Commando tests (even as opposed to the Crucible) you'd find that we'd bleed the corps dry of Marines who were quite proficient in their job; those Marines, and likely non-combat oriented units could then be pulled into big Army. The Marine Corps would then no longer function as a general purpose force in readiness (something the Corps is organizationally structured and mandated to be), but as an amphibious raid oriented force in readiness. Many of the billets and commands that'd normally be staffed by Marines would then fall under the other services to provide.
This could create a lot of problems in the short and long run in regards to coordination, funding, and retention...not an easy question to give a real answer to.

Response by PV2 Violet Case made May 11 at 2016 5:00 AM

PV2 Violet Case — Wed, 11 May 2016 05:00:49 -0400

We were all trained for different purposes. But the main purpose of joining was because we love our country and the freedoms of it. We all spill the same color of blood. But we all offered to spill our blood if necessary for our country and our Constitution. Each has different tasks to do in each area and we all do or did them to the best of our ability. And all who wore a uniform for our country should be proud of that and remember we all spill the same color of blood no matter what rank or what area we joined but each one has its purposes that is why they were created that way.

Response by SSG Edward Joy made Jun 25 at 2016 4:10 PM

SSG Edward Joy — Sat, 25 Jun 2016 16:10:52 -0400

You need to have your head examined.

Response by SPC Dawn Appelberg (Johnson) made Jun 25 at 2016 4:56 PM

SPC Dawn Appelberg (Johnson) — Sat, 25 Jun 2016 16:56:48 -0400

I have always thought we should cponsolidate into one known branch of service, however keep thje standards of the individual for the MOS. Marines will ALWAYS be marines no matter what. Army is the most flexible, with the most MOSs expansion.

Response by LCpl Mark Riley made Jun 25 at 2016 5:02 PM

LCpl Mark Riley — Sat, 25 Jun 2016 17:02:00 -0400

Hell fucking NO

Response by SPC Dawn Appelberg (Johnson) made Jun 25 at 2016 5:03 PM

SPC Dawn Appelberg (Johnson) — Sat, 25 Jun 2016 17:03:11 -0400

You really wantto see some ruffled feathers? There are congressional representatives that think all teh services shoul be placced inot a Guard status and training scenario unless mobilized. Think on that one for a bit. Combining all the miklitary into one branch, culling the duplicate MOSs, and then dropping it all inot a Guard training scenario...and peopel wonder why I think we really REALLY need to rethink this trend we are taking as a country.

Response by LtCol Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 25 at 2016 5:48 PM

LtCol Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 25 Jun 2016 17:48:33 -0400

Think about it this way. When you develope an aircraft that does everything (fighter/strike, etc) you usually end up with an aircraft with lots of compromises and isn't that great with any mission. We should let the Marines focus on its mission set and the Army focus on their mission. You would run the risk of just melding into the Army way of doing things.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 25 at 2016 5:56 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 25 Jun 2016 17:56:55 -0400

Is this a duffle blog discussion?

Response by SPC Tony Bucaro made Jun 25 at 2016 6:05 PM

SPC Tony Bucaro — Sat, 25 Jun 2016 18:05:59 -0400

No offense to you SSgt Luck but I earned my Blue Cord and Cross Rifles!! Being a United States Army Infantryman is a title I carry with pride and not one I would want to share with a "Jar-Head" being that it's sacred to me. RAKKASAN!!!

Response by PFC Travis West made Jun 25 at 2016 7:41 PM

PFC Travis West — Sat, 25 Jun 2016 19:41:00 -0400

This makes no sense. The Marines are property of the Navy.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 25 at 2016 9:36 PM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 25 Jun 2016 21:36:10 -0400

Diversification is good. Even big corporations start little tiny fledgling companies because it gives them flexibility and freedom and lets them branch out. Integrating the Army and USMC is asking one branch to do too many missions, and all missions will suffer as a result. In fact, I would ask if we shouldn't break the cyber component out of the USAF. We should be looking for more division of labor, not less.

Response by PO3 Chris Wright, MBA made Jun 25 at 2016 10:35 PM

PO3 Chris Wright, MBA — Sat, 25 Jun 2016 22:35:46 -0400

For all the negative responses and bickering, I think the beaches should stay separated. The Marines are good at waking up at 0500 to PT, the army is good at waking up at 0600, the air force at 0900, and the Navy is good at stopping alcohol consumption at 0600 and going on watch at 0700.

Response by SMSgt William Hassiepen made Jun 26 at 2016 12:16 AM

SMSgt William Hassiepen — Sun, 26 Jun 2016 00:16:02 -0400

I've some stupid idea in my day next to the trans gender (I view it was cross dressing) this is one of the stupidest. The Army and Marines have two totally different missions

Response by Cpl Elijah West made Jun 26 at 2016 12:59 AM

Cpl Elijah West — Sun, 26 Jun 2016 00:59:23 -0400

Constitutionally, there shouldn't even be a US Army (not standing). I believe it should be down sized to only a few elite active units and relegated mostly to the reserves and private millitias.

But there Naval (yes that means us too) service is authorized so...

Response by SGT Christopher 'Kit' Lowe made Jun 26 at 2016 3:20 AM

SGT Christopher 'Kit' Lowe — Sun, 26 Jun 2016 03:20:42 -0400

What they should do is not consolidate with regards to eliminating to Corps but use the Marines like they did during WWI when they were part of the 2 Infantry. Some of greatest Fights for the Marines have come when they have worked in tandem with the Army. Did the same in the Pacific and in one of those cases a Marine general took charge of an army outfit.
When I was in Afghanistan I served with the Marines and it would have made it easier if certain elements were streamlined like forms, equipment, uniforms. Problem with Iraq and Afghanistan is that it has made people question the Marines ship to shore mission and the fact that they have also doing long term missions instead of lightening attacks.
There's been talks recently with the British Army of having their brigades fall under larger American divisions in any upcoming conflict that we may fight together. It makes senses, helps pool resources and gives a more unified command structure.

Response by SPC(P) Carlos Santini made Jun 26 at 2016 5:03 AM

SPC(P) Carlos Santini — Sun, 26 Jun 2016 05:03:22 -0400

I think it could work if everyone stopped and think about what is good for our country. Marines and Army personal work together on training exercises all the time. There could be a higher command that overseas the Army and Marine branches. Each branch could still exist and have there respective traditions but work more closely on training exercises and deployments. Each branch has their own specialties that we all can utilize and expand on to help our military to fight in today's battlefields.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 26 at 2016 6:55 AM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 26 Jun 2016 06:55:07 -0400

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 26 at 2016 11:51 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 26 Jun 2016 11:51:50 -0400

Look at it from a practical point of view, not I'm a Marine or Soilder, yeah quick strike force etc. I'm a grunt, grunts would still do grunt stuff, mp do mp stuff etc. just makes good sense. I'm sure there would be certain unit that specialize in certain aspects etc

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 27 at 2016 1:45 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 27 Jun 2016 13:45:37 -0400

Honestly, I do not think we should. Even if you lay the proud tradition in both Branches aside, the two have different missions. The Army is designed to fight over land (excluding their specialized components), and the Marines are designed for amphibious warfare. There would be no point in joining either one specifically if they combined. What would we label that consolidation anyway? The Aquatic Army? Or the Landlocked Marine Corps? It just doesn't work. The two Branches were made different because they are needed for different things.

Response by Sgt Joseph Baker made Jun 27 at 2016 3:19 PM

Sgt Joseph Baker — Mon, 27 Jun 2016 15:19:42 -0400

Totally support this. I have a great idea. Let's take everybody in the Army and make them go through Marine Corps boot camp so they can upgrade. For all those non-Army people out there, did you know they have different grades of basic training? Yes, it's true, they have basic training for combat arms types and basic training lite for everyone else. I couldn't believe it when my son who went in the Army explained it to me. That's one major difference from the Corps, where every single recruit goes through the same punishment no matter their MOS.

Response by GySgt Carl Rumbolo made Jun 27 at 2016 3:55 PM

GySgt Carl Rumbolo — Mon, 27 Jun 2016 15:55:54 -0400

was a Corporal at 19 so yes

Response by LCDR Tom Rancich made Jun 27 at 2016 5:27 PM

LCDR Tom Rancich — Mon, 27 Jun 2016 17:27:40 -0400

thus displaying total ignorance of the modern battle field

Response by SPC Sheila Lewis made Jun 28 at 2016 10:21 AM

SPC Sheila Lewis — Tue, 28 Jun 2016 10:21:56 -0400

Yes because each can train together. The Marines were America's force against the Barbary pirates about two-hundred years ago, hence "From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli."

Response by MSgt Gordon Nielsen made Jul 1 at 2016 9:29 PM

MSgt Gordon Nielsen — Fri, 01 Jul 2016 21:29:31 -0400

The Army has its mission and the Marine Corps has theirs. Leave it alone.

Response by MSgt Gordon Nielsen made Jul 1 at 2016 9:34 PM

MSgt Gordon Nielsen — Fri, 01 Jul 2016 21:34:37 -0400

The Army, Navy, Air Force each have their missions and the Marine Corps has its mission. Leave things as they are. G.D. Nielsen MSgt. USMC (Ret.)

Response by LCpl James Robertson made Jul 28 at 2016 12:30 PM

LCpl James Robertson — Thu, 28 Jul 2016 12:30:26 -0400

The question above is political in nature, I believe politicians want to merged the two, I have seen comments on these pages, after veterans and active-duty comments, the powers that be makes it happen. If the comments are all yes, look for these changes to be made. Why don't they just say we are tired of the Marine Corps, we could save a lot of money by merging it. Whether we want it are not, look at the number of Military Bases being closed, the military itself is the smallest since World War 1. Lets wait and see what happens with the USMC.

Response by 1SG Glenn Boxley made Sep 22 at 2016 9:48 PM

1SG Glenn Boxley — Thu, 22 Sep 2016 21:48:06 -0400

I have read the entire load of comments on this subject to date. Mostly I see people with prejudices and egos that would prevent it from working no matter what. It CAN work with a little thinking, some training, and planning. And all those egos need to go down the piss tube. In the end we still need the same capabilities, transport, and positioning, but we do not need the self-important fluff. In Viet Nam the Army called Marines "walking sandbags". At that time it might have had some truth in it. Today both services have gained professionalism. I had some dealings with Navy NCOs and I found their attitudes piss-poor. I had better relations with the Corps. By the way, I was the Commandant of an MOS producing school that trained all 5 branches and I really found nobody to be better than anybody else. I was also a Senior Drill Sgt. for two years, and I know very well that I can train troops as well as you can. That all said; cheers to one and all.

Response by Sgt Frank Rinchich made Sep 29 at 2016 5:50 PM

Sgt Frank Rinchich — Thu, 29 Sep 2016 17:50:47 -0400

Christ sake give it up, NO they should not, both branches have different duty's let them do what they been doing for the last 240 years and get off the subject. Marine Corps is a fast response unit , like using a small marble to brake up the bunch then use your big marbles to finish it off and keep it the way we want it., first its, don't ask don't tell. then genders and even boy scouts . damn politicians keep your hand's out of the military, a solider loves his army just as a marine loves his corps. you want to keep this country safe, get the hell out of the military's way.

Response by CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 30 at 2016 3:57 AM

CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 30 Sep 2016 03:57:19 -0400

The answer that you are seeking is "no". The United States Army and the Marine Corps are two distinct entities. The National Security Act of 1947 as amended is the controlling military legislation of the United States. This act provides the establishment of integrated policies and procedures for the departments, agencies, and functions of the Government relating to the National Security. In short this Act provides for three military departments, separately organized, for the operation and administration of the Army, the Navy (including naval aviation) and the "United States Marine Corps", and the Air Force, with their assigned combatant and service components. Provides for the coordination and direction of the three military departments and four services under the Secretary of Defense. Provides for strategic direction of the Armed Forces, for their operation under unified control, for establishment of unified and specified commands, and for the integration of the four services into an efficient team of land, naval, and air forces. This unification has been accomplished by giving the Secretary of Defense authority and virtual military control over the four services, although the Secretary does not administer directly the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. Please read the National Security Act of 1947. This is a statutory law that was put into affect by Congress. This is why the answer is a NO.

J.K.Kaupe, Jr.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2016 7:31 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 06 Oct 2016 19:31:28 -0400

I'm going to try and answer this objectively. If I get emotional, lemme know.
As a whole? No; America would lose capabilities and a force that doesn't require congressional approval to utilize. The Marine Corps is different than the other services in the sense that IOT use big Army/Air Force/Navy for conventional warfare, it requires an act of congress. The Marine Corps has duties that, according to Title 10, "the President may direct." That broad based authority is not applied to the other armed forces of the United States of America. The ability to mobilize a military formation to take care of emergency situations in other countries, or other duties like Marine Security Guard or the Security Forces Regiment would have to be rethought in utilization by other services.
Partially? Yes, but it'd reshape how the Corps and other services operate and are utilized: this would likely take out units from the Marines and consolidate into other services, and bring in units from other forces, not to mention take away national resources in terms of mission capability. Here's a scenario to think about: suppose the Marines were to transform from a general purpose amphibious force in readiness to a amphibious raid force, specializing in commando missions.
The Corps could effectively get rid of several units not required for a commando force...but how would this look? How would this start? From boot camp. Following the model of the Royal Marines Commando, immediately following boot camp, Marines would be required to go through weapons training, tactics training, commando training & fieldcraft, then a commando qualification/tests. The only personnel not required to go through the commando training at SOI are those in the Marine Band. All basic MOS training at SOI would be consolidated into the commando course; fully qualifying Marines to perform in several duties normally done by separate MOSes. Those who cannot make it are either recycled or separated. As soon as this is completed, a Marine can go to any Commando (size of a battalion) and deploy. If further training is required in specialty MOSes, the Marine must already have contracted for that position. Infantry (Commando) Marines are given the option to go to a specialty combat arms course such as BRC or Scout Sniper. The Marine Corps would keep it's Divisions, but each unit would be re-designated as a Commando Unit.
What does this leave out? Embarkation could be conducted by the Army and Navy, and basic, non-combat oriented duties can go to the Navy for utilization, for example. Marine Aviation duties would get consolidated into the big 3 services.
Who does this leave out? Non-combat arms personnel that aren't utilized in direct support. This transformation would bleed out several current Marines who couldn't pass the commando tests if they wanted to be retained in the Corps.
Who does this bring in? Maybe the 75th Ranger Regiment, 82nd & 101st Airborne, and 10th Mountain Division. Maybe no one.
What would this really accomplish? Nothing but a financial, logistical, clerical, dissent-amongst-the-ranks-inducing nightmare. The movement and retraining of personnel, especially at that scale, would be an extremely expensive endeavor. Due to responsibilities of enlisted personnel from Cpl-GySgt, any consolidation to other services would require a paygrade increase (Compare FM 3-21.8 to any Marine Corps doctrine in regards to roles and responsibilities of ranks and you'll see what I mean: SSgts [E-6] in the Marines are responsible for a platoon of 39 not counting a Corpsman, RTO, FO, or other support; a SFC [E-7] in the Army is responsible for a platoon of 36 not counting support personnel, for example). As it stands right now, the culture of the Marine Corps reflects in the very paperwork that allows Marines to conduct operations; most SOPs, guidance, marching orders, use, and law would have to be rewritten. Additionally, the non-combat capabilities of MAGTFs in deployed scenarios would also decrease, leaving policy makers and decision makers without previously known, readily available resources at their disposal.
If America is really going to consider such a task, there's an awful lot to consider, and a transformation that'd take billions of dollars and man-hours to complete in order to be done correctly. It's hard to imagine that America can afford to take up such a task.

Response by CPL Ronald Coleman made Oct 12 at 2016 5:04 PM

CPL Ronald Coleman — Wed, 12 Oct 2016 17:04:10 -0400

No...leave well enough alone... 300 plus years of perfection..... Why change?

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Jan 31 at 2017 1:41 PM

SGM Bill Frazer — Tue, 31 Jan 2017 13:41:37 -0500

NO- logically, they have different missions, different logistics, etc. If you had ever been in either you would know that. Few Army units (Airborne, Rangers, Air Assault) are configured to seize key points and do it well- but lack the armor support, and naval gunfire that the typical Marine (MEU) has. On the other hand MEU's do not have the range that the Airborne, Ranger units have in that they can be deployed much further inland from a coast if resupplied. The 82nd can be ready to move a BN TF in 18 hours or less anywhere, a Brigade in 24 and the entire Division in 36, if the Air Force can cope at anytime. 3rd World countries would not normally see it coming., To assemble a USMC Div, would take much longer, just in ship travel time, if the Navy had the ships to move than and it's much more apparent to the world. Army heavy units are different, takes longer to move- but they have Divisions of heavy/ Mech units while the USMC has much less.

Response by MAJ Norm Michaels made Jan 31 at 2017 6:49 PM

MAJ Norm Michaels — Tue, 31 Jan 2017 18:49:37 -0500

Competition gives us better products that we enjoy around the house. Competition gives us a better Marine Corps and Army. I was blessed to receive Amphibious Warfare training at Quantico from my brother Marines. I was then blessed to serve along side Marines in the Sand Box. I say we need both. Maybe, just maybe, we need another Navy to help make our current Navy better? Marine and Navy Air certainly keep our Air Force on their toes...

Response by CPL Thomas Johns made Feb 9 at 2017 6:57 PM

CPL Thomas Johns — Thu, 09 Feb 2017 18:57:23 -0500

Hell yes. It would save billions. And create quicker response. But can the Marine pride accept being folded into the Army.

Response by SSG Walter Corretjer made Feb 10 at 2017 5:15 PM

SSG Walter Corretjer — Fri, 10 Feb 2017 17:15:26 -0500

Yes

Response by SSG Walter Corretjer made Feb 10 at 2017 5:17 PM

SSG Walter Corretjer — Fri, 10 Feb 2017 17:17:09 -0500

Yes

Response by Cpl Don "GUNNY" Miller made Feb 16 at 2017 3:52 PM

Cpl Don "GUNNY" Miller — Thu, 16 Feb 2017 15:52:38 -0500

NO!

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 18 at 2017 11:54 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 18 Feb 2017 11:54:28 -0500

No! The Marines are part of the Navy. I kid, but that is their designed purpose. For "Seizure or defense of advanced naval bases and other land operations to support naval campaigns; and Development of tactics, technique, and equipment used by amphibious landing forces in coordination with the Army and Air Force"
The USMC was formed as a type of Naval Infantry. That is what they should stay doing. The Marines do things we Army folk could never do, and we Army folk do things the Marines couldn't. There's a reason for having 4 branches rather than 1.

Response by SGT Mark Sullivan made Feb 24 at 2017 8:24 PM

SGT Mark Sullivan — Fri, 24 Feb 2017 20:24:07 -0500

I think their training should be combined. Army Basic should become more like Marine Corps Boot Camp. Occupational Specialty training, AIT, the Marines should be trained by the Army. In some instances, certain AIT does combine Marines and Army together. As far as units are concerned, the missions are slightly different, but both services should be able to perform both missions if necessary. It would make for a more flexible combined force, with an understanding of both service components, and how they operate.

Response by Cpl Bill Johnson made Mar 2 at 2017 12:15 PM

Cpl Bill Johnson — Thu, 02 Mar 2017 12:15:37 -0500

No. Just no. Should navy SEALs be grouped in with army special forces? No.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 11 at 2017 10:57 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 11 Mar 2017 10:57:20 -0500

In today's world, joint operations yes, consolidate to one service no.

Response by Cpl Christopher Bishop made Mar 14 at 2017 2:27 AM

Cpl Christopher Bishop — Tue, 14 Mar 2017 02:27:33 -0400

Nothing of any consolidations can or will ever happen effectively until you take closer looks and the entrance standards.

There are many people who ended up in the Army because they did not meet the Entrance Standards for the Marine Corps. And there are very few rejected first by the Army who later made it into the Corps.

Granted there are always a few exceptions to everything. There are always some Army people who probably would have been great Marines, and there are always a few Marines that most other Marines wonder how they ever got through Boot Camp, or how they even passed an ASVAB. But those ARE the exceptions, not the rule.

Additionally, you now have to include women in the discussion.

The Corps spent 2 years entertaining and training ladies for combat jobs, and closed it down. Afterwards, ladies went to the Army Ranger School. How many of them actually went on to a Ranger Unit and ever functioned as Rangers, vs how many ran back to their POG jobs with merely a few more promotion points and a Ranger tab?

Its not about who CAN, its about who WILL.

And good luck with requiring all of those Army people to know how to swim.

Response by LCpl Stephen Arnold made Mar 14 at 2017 11:44 AM

LCpl Stephen Arnold — Tue, 14 Mar 2017 11:44:59 -0400

The Marine Corps is designed to be a quick, hard hitting branch, a "Sucker punch" if you will. The Army is like our big brother; we can knock the bully straight in the teeth because we know our big brother is coming; otherwise, we fight a lot more sensibly.

I think this question is better asked by our enemies, truthfully. "Mr. Taliban, after you wipe the blood from your mouth from the 2d Marine Division, how DO you feel seeing the 82d Airborne landing in your backyard as the 10th Mountain climbs up your ass?"

Then again, it's kinda nice having that Naval gunfire and Air Force air cover coming too.

Bottom line, we, the shit kicking military of the United States, work well together when our branch leaders put their egos aside and let us do what we do, together: KICK ASS AND WIN!

Response by MSG Michael McEleney made Mar 26 at 2017 7:59 PM

MSG Michael McEleney — Sun, 26 Mar 2017 19:59:02 -0400

The Canadians did this about 40 years ago by consolidating all the services. Didn't work.

Response by SPC Byron Skinner made Mar 27 at 2017 9:33 PM

SPC Byron Skinner — Mon, 27 Mar 2017 21:33:33 -0400

Sp4 Byron Skinner. NO. The modern Marine Corp is the product of WW II. Before that they were like all other Marines a Naval Infantry. They were spread out in the fleet, enforced discipline on board ship and occasionally went ashore to bust drunk sailors out of a local jail. The changing force was Smedley Butler who wrote War is a racket, the Panama War Games of the 1930 and the resulting boo Small War Manual, USMC 1940. War came on December 7th. 1941 and the War Department found the only ground force available in the Pacific were the Marines. The Japanese held Pacific Islands and had to be kicked off, the modern Marines wet born. The Marines can't operate very long with out the combat power of the Army and the robust support and service that come with the US Army. Since WWII in Korea, Vietnam and now in the 21st Century the Marines have played the role of Army light. This is not an efficient role for the marines nor for the resources of the Army.

Response by SPC Johnny Velazquez, PhD made Apr 14 at 2017 4:21 PM

SPC Johnny Velazquez, PhD — Fri, 14 Apr 2017 16:21:21 -0400

NO!!!! No offense to my Marine brothers ands sisters, but, NO!!!! Blessings.

Response by COL John Hudson made Apr 28 at 2017 9:39 AM

COL John Hudson — Fri, 28 Apr 2017 09:39:25 -0400

I attended the last "LOGEX" (logistical exercise) at Camp Pickett in Blackstone, Virginia back in the day. We had a contingent of Canadians with us. One briefing was particularly interesting, focusing of this very same idea. Canada, for all of the reasons stated throughout this thread, made the decision to go to "one military - one uniform,' and actually implemented the plan. It was a recruiting disaster across the board. Their enlistment and officer programs fell through the floor, severely affecting virtually all their programs service-wide. Why? Because individuals wanted the recognition that their particular skill set identified with. Aviation wanted flight suits, mechanized infantry wanted tanker outfits, infantry desired their own...you get the picture. None of them wanted to wear a 'one size and color fits all' style of uniform with nothing to set them apart from other branches of their military. Pride, skill set, aptitude, and yes, even inter-service rivalries and competition all came into play. The Canadian government back-pedaled and cancelled the 'one military' idea and that, as they say, was that. In my thirty year career, I was, in order, Infantry, Aviation, back to Infantry, Quartermaster, Inspector General, and Combat Generalist. I loved every minute of the incredible variety I experienced as Enlisted, Warrant, then Commissioned service, and never would have had it any other way. "One size fits all" is NOT a good idea for our United States military.

Response by LTC John Wilson made May 20 at 2017 9:57 AM

LTC John Wilson — Sat, 20 May 2017 09:57:35 -0400

Branches within branches would only be fighting within the consolidated military to get a larger share of the budget. That is going to be the case until we can wrap our heads around One solid military branch with definitive options as currently denoted: Marines, Air Force, Navy, Army. The Marines are are emergency force to help Americans and American policy around the world. They get in and hold the ground until POTUS decides to gets Congressional approval to send in the Army . All our branches have done an excellent job. Besides Americans always want to pride themselves as being in a branch (Unit) that is very special (Army Special Forces, Seals, Air Force Commandos, Coast Guard (LE), etc.
Change is hard for the most Senior Officers in each branch and they don't want to give up their power or be out of their element of expertise.
I served in the Marine Corps for six years, loved the comradely and professionalism. However, I got out of the Marines and reenlisted in the Army for more training, education, and where I could make the most difference (Army Special Forces- ODA Commander, B-Team Commander. I cherished the men who worked with me, they were top notch, brilliant, and Patriotic Americans. Let us all not forget each service member is a volunteer and Loves this country until their dying breath. God Bless the Army, the Marine Corps, The Navy, The Air Force and the Coast Guard. We are always Serving others and are proud to where the uniform.

Response by LCpl James Robertson made May 26 at 2017 9:20 AM

LCpl James Robertson — Fri, 26 May 2017 09:20:25 -0400

Out of every strategic plan to merge Companies and Business someone will get the hind tit. The Army has several Special OPs Teams to deploy them through out the world, thay have proven themselves to do a very good job. To defeat the enemy in war. Every war plan of execution should not come from the same branch of service, for example when I were with the Fleet Marine Forces, every country we entered we learned different styles of fighting. Wherein if plan one is not working for Special OPS, let the Marines come in with plan #2, with there style of fighting

Response by LCpl Luke Vega made Jun 1 at 2017 11:17 AM

LCpl Luke Vega — Thu, 01 Jun 2017 11:17:40 -0400

it does make sense, but I would rather stay with tradition.

Response by SrA Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 4 at 2017 3:27 AM

SrA Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 04 Jun 2017 03:27:35 -0400

The discussion is should we combine branches ?
I think the branches are somewhat already combined just not fully integrated like the DOD would like it to be. I think efforts have already been made to combine forces, and the reason so is because I remember during BMT training AT Lackland when marching to different appoints I remember seeing several Navy Staff and Trainees in Blue Berries training at Lackland Airforce Base.

Also My Tech School down in Bioloxi Mississippi I remember seeing Marines and Navy Men Training along with us shopping at the BX and eating at the same Chow Hall. The Marines and Navy had one combined Apartment unit that at the front of the base with the rest of the surrounding apartment units belonging to Airmen in training. The only difference was they had separate school buildings, but the training they were receiving may have been based on a Air Force curriculum not really sure because I didn't really get close enough too any Navy or Marines to Ask.

The Air Guard base I served at had a Army Guard base right across the street, so from these observations and experiences the units have already integrated. Also you can't forget the number of prior service who crossover too other branches. I knew several prior service Navy,Marines, and Army that came over to the Air force branch.

One thing that wasn't mentioned is that the Air Force came from the Army similar to how the Marines came from Navy, and I'm pretty sure some where along in history that the Coast Guard was a off-shot of the Navy. Remember that the Air force completely Broke from the Army in 1947 because of previous early efforts by influential officers. Air Force was always trying to be a separate branch from the Army it went through many changes. The Air Force was started as part of the Army Signal Core a branch of the Army that flew the first planes created by the Wright Brothers. Other changes came when Billy Mitchell and Hap Arnold suggested the forces between Army and Air Division be separated which they manage to convince major powers through media outlets by convincing certain pilots to go public about certain experiences and casualties they suffered through while flying. Through this whole media process Air Service and Air Corps was created which was still a division of the Army, but not completely separated. The real change of complete separation didn't take place until 1947 when the National Security Act was passed in July which created separate Military Air Branch of that same year of date September 18.

Even though i gave history lesson of how Air Force separated from Army I still think the Airforce through the ways certain things get done are based off of Army tradition, but just not as intense. I will list several ways how they are similar but different.
1.Army Boot Camp 10 Weeks vs Airforce 8 Weeks
2.Army PT test 2 miles(8 laps) vs Airforce 1 1/2 Miles(6laps)
3.Army Weapons Training More variety vs Air Force training with only M4's and Beretta's unless you train in a special force unit like Black Ops equivalent to Army Green Berets and Rangers
4.Army has Infantry vs Air Forces Security Forces which is very similar to each other in what they do.
without going to deep and listing all the similarities and commonness among these two branches one thing that I'm trying say is that the Army is the Big Brother of the Air Force the only difference is when comes to do similar things its not as intense in certain areas. The only main difference is the missions in which Air Force is Air Power with some ground forces like the Army and the Army like the Air force has some Air Power, but not as much.

about doing things is still based on the Army for example:

In Conclusion should the forces combine? I would say yes and no and if they were to combine they would still be separated. I don't think it would completely change. I think if Congressmen and the DOD decided to combine all branches by making it one in the same you would sti have historical tradition of the branches Army,Air-force,Marines,Navy and Coast Guard. The only thing that would change is a personality test on paper and simulated real life scenarios and a real team try out that could predict which branch would be more suitable for and individual. Which would be a deciding factor, in the branch one should join and be the most successful in .

Response by LTC Roderic Hewlett made Jun 16 at 2017 6:05 AM

LTC Roderic Hewlett — Fri, 16 Jun 2017 06:05:55 -0400

Different cultures and unique traditions. This is not anMBA analysis business decision or an accounting question, it is a defense of our country question.

Response by Joe Martin made Jul 4 at 2017 8:22 PM

Joe Martin — Tue, 04 Jul 2017 20:22:01 -0400

Never combine the two Marines are tactically and mentally superior right from the start.

Response by SGT Greg Gold made Jul 6 at 2017 6:43 PM

SGT Greg Gold — Thu, 06 Jul 2017 18:43:07 -0400

The real reason why the Army and Marines can never be consolidated is the Army supply system isn't set up to push the kind of crayon tonnage forward. Marines need a lot of crayons, bless their little hearts.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 6 at 2017 6:56 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 06 Jul 2017 18:56:16 -0400

If Soldiers and Marines were to look at this question objectively and be honest with themselves, the answer is obvious. Question: Could the Marine Corps and Army consolidate? Realistically, yes they probably could. However, its almost a guarantee that they never will.

A quick look at all the replies below will show anyone the main reason why that is. Every Marine and Soldier has so much pride in their own branch that they will always look towards their differences rather then their similarities whenever this question arises. Further, one could argue that it is that pride and/or friendly rivalry that helps boost Esprit De Corps making them *both* the great fighting forces they are.

So in summary, the answer to your question is yes, but they never will. Don't ask why, just deal with it.

Response by CPO Glenn Moss made Jul 12 at 2017 3:32 AM

CPO Glenn Moss — Wed, 12 Jul 2017 03:32:44 -0400

Dear Lord, no!

The Army and Marines have two different purposes!

Response by Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth made Jul 12 at 2017 12:09 PM

Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth — Wed, 12 Jul 2017 12:09:58 -0400

For the majority...no. however, our special forces in each branch already deploy and fight together. I would be for a Spec Ops force that initiates training together and serves their time together. Go through their respective service branch basic and then gets selected but once selected, you go to a centralized location for combined training. It only makes sense, since they are already fighting and deploying together. Just my two pennies.

Response by SFC Dale Neidigh made Jul 20 at 2017 11:54 AM

SFC Dale Neidigh — Thu, 20 Jul 2017 11:54:16 -0400

We are all serving this nation. We SHOULD be as one. I trained with Marines when I went through MP training. We had the best time, swapping stories about training, etc. It would be good for the country to see us come together AS ONE UNIT!

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 20 at 2017 3:20 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 20 Jul 2017 15:20:52 -0400

The Marines are lot more disciplined for a reason. They are kicking down the door shock force, and the Army is more a long term occupying the house force. I recommend that we do not mix the two.

Response by SFC Jack Bennett made Jul 27 at 2017 5:19 PM

SFC Jack Bennett — Thu, 27 Jul 2017 17:19:33 -0400

This discussion has run well over a year Time to start a new discussion

Response by Sgt Michael Clifford made Jul 31 at 2017 7:08 AM

Sgt Michael Clifford — Mon, 31 Jul 2017 07:08:27 -0400

NO absolutely not. The USA and the USMC have specific roles to play in national defense. All of the military branches have demonstrated over 242 years their value. They bring different perspectives to protecting the republic.

Response by SSG Will Phillips made Jul 31 at 2017 3:41 PM

SSG Will Phillips — Mon, 31 Jul 2017 15:41:30 -0400

Train together yes ... Consolidate no.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 6 at 2017 1:23 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 06 Aug 2017 13:23:36 -0400

While we would be better funded and get better gear and living standards, I think I'll pass on the lower PT/body fat standards and poor uniform choices. Besides, who else would retake cities like Fallujah and scare the crap out of our enemies with the mere mention of our name?

Response by COL William Oseles made Aug 6 at 2017 1:47 PM

COL William Oseles — Sun, 06 Aug 2017 13:47:21 -0400

What Uncle Sam's Misguided Children carrying on how the Army cannot do what they do is to remember that in World War Two the Army conducted more "seaborne deployments" than the Marines did.
The services complement eachothers capabilities as they currently exist but what the once did they can do again.
The Army picked up the heavy combat roll, the Marines the medium role and all servuces have part of the light roll.

Response by SGT Luis San Roman Jr made Aug 6 at 2017 1:54 PM

SGT Luis San Roman Jr — Sun, 06 Aug 2017 13:54:15 -0400

Just a question or thought? To consolidate the Marines into the Army..wouldn't that be consolidating three branches into one? Considering the Marines aren't really a branch of their own. If you look at their insignia it says "Department of the Navy" so they are already consolidated with another branch...just food for thought.

Response by PFC Matt Robbins made Aug 6 at 2017 1:58 PM

PFC Matt Robbins — Sun, 06 Aug 2017 13:58:40 -0400

Sure as long as everyone is held to the Corps standards... I say that as an Army 12B and knowing full well what the Marines are capable of and how they train... Nobody else comes close!

Response by Capt Bob Soldner made Aug 6 at 2017 2:21 PM

Capt Bob Soldner — Sun, 06 Aug 2017 14:21:26 -0400

In one word why not, "MISSION"

Response by SFC S.t. Helms (Ret) made Aug 6 at 2017 2:41 PM

SFC S.t. Helms (Ret) — Sun, 06 Aug 2017 14:41:30 -0400

This is a jack@$$ery debate.The Army and Marines do essentially the same thing. Heck the initial invasion of Gulf II proved it. Why do we have different uniforms, different boots? It's a waste of $$$. I was in the Army, I was in the Guard and worked alongside Marines since 07. We both do the same thing with minor differences. I say eliminate the Marines or eliminate the Army. The US does not need "two Armies". Heck why do our different forces have the 412 (super huey) and the S-72 (Blackhawk)... they both do the same thing. The 47 and 53 do essentially the same thing... eliminate one! Yes the Army doesn't have jets, but doesn't the Cobra and Apache do the same thing? The Army doesn't have 130's but that is what the Air Force is for.

The Navy and Air Force should stay separate and on their own. The Army and Marines should combine. Just get rid of some of the slugs from the Army, and eliminate the "mind job/beainwash" that the Marines force on their troops.

Response by PO1 Matt Klinghammer made Aug 6 at 2017 3:28 PM

PO1 Matt Klinghammer — Sun, 06 Aug 2017 15:28:51 -0400

The Marines already belong to the Navy Department. Consolidate what, exactly?

Response by SGT Luke Wooster made Aug 6 at 2017 4:35 PM

SGT Luke Wooster — Sun, 06 Aug 2017 16:35:36 -0400

During President H.W. Bush term a bill passed through Congress to unite the Army and Marine Corps. This happens under a strong legislature, a cyclic power struggle of Executive versus Legislative balance. Legislature is strong as I should elaborate. Even though Army, glad H.W. Bush vetoed the bill. Marine Corps is the President's own! Get comfortable with joint training in my opinion. Deployment quickness is complicated. My pick for quickness is CIA paramilitary then Army SOF. Army has a cruddy mission these days, nothing substantial like AFRICOM or embassies.

Response by SSG Todd Halverson made Aug 6 at 2017 5:25 PM

SSG Todd Halverson — Sun, 06 Aug 2017 17:25:24 -0400

The Marines would never allow it. They would dislike the competition for dance partners at the Saturday dance parties aboard ships. Also, the availability of crayons could become an issue......lmao

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 6 at 2017 6:00 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 06 Aug 2017 18:00:28 -0400

No! They serve two different roles in our nation's strategic interests. It is not about insulting the Army or Marines.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 6 at 2017 6:04 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 06 Aug 2017 18:04:57 -0400

Another thing is that the USMC is an integral part of the Navy. If the USMC were handed over to the Army, we would either run with their title and then the Navy would eventually augment the Seals and Seabees with additional ground combat forces in future conflicts. What would they eventually be called?

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 6 at 2017 6:05 PM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 06 Aug 2017 18:05:18 -0400

No to all the Marines do their best job with the Navy air Force needs to remain independent.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 6 at 2017 6:21 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 06 Aug 2017 18:21:09 -0400

No. The Marine doctrine on how it executes its missions and daily conduct is very different from the Army. The disparity is so significant, that the attitude between a soldier and a Marine is different, especially in their operational capabilities.
The Marine rank structure enables leadership and command decision making through mission type orders, at a very young rank. It is not uncommon to see a LCpl assigned as a fire team leader despite not being an NCO. With the US armed forces backbone being that made up of NCO's, it is even more emphasised in the Marine Corps with many NCOs filling in field grade officer roles. I have never seen that practiced in the Army, with many commands are reliant on the SSG and SFC to make sure things get done.
From a practical standpoint it would be more feasible (financially) to consolidate the two branches. However this notion has been explored many times, and each time it is the American people who spoke that America does not need their Marine Corps they want their Marine Corps. i can understand why so many Marines get so passionate and emotional over the very suggestion of a consolidation of forces, but I don't see why I don't see many soldiers who exhibit that very same passion when it comes to their branch, except when their representing a certain division or "patch". Maybe it's this Marine Corps wide passion for their corps which is the driving force to achieving great feats against all odds. Who knows? But those who have served with Marines and Soldiers side by side will see the difference in how they get things done and I believe that's the only way you can accurately summize why keeping the two branches separate is necessary.

Response by SSG Isaac Bos made Aug 6 at 2017 6:36 PM

SSG Isaac Bos — Sun, 06 Aug 2017 18:36:07 -0400

Sure. Why not? Would Marines like a greater access to training, promotion, and equipment? Why is it that so many Marines end up joining the Army? Because they're tired of seeing Army soldiers walking around with better equipment. They're tired of seeing the same guy they went to high school with that joined the Army getting promoted faster then they are. After joining they realize how much SF, Ranger Bat., Delta, ect. would have been something they would have liked to been a part of. Soldiers serve on ships, and get paid extra for doing it too.

Response by SGT Ron Egan made Aug 6 at 2017 6:49 PM

SGT Ron Egan — Sun, 06 Aug 2017 18:49:51 -0400

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Response by SSgt Thomas Phillips made Aug 6 at 2017 7:24 PM

SSgt Thomas Phillips — Sun, 06 Aug 2017 19:24:57 -0400

No, the two branches have, among other reasons, 1 very large basic difference. The Army comes in and becomes an occupying force, where the Marine Corps is designed to be more mobile. All tenets of the two branches are based on those philosophies.

Response by GySgt William Pietrzak made Aug 6 at 2017 8:59 PM

GySgt William Pietrzak — Sun, 06 Aug 2017 20:59:52 -0400

The negatives are to numerous to list here. Its not a good idea.
Each service has it's mission. When you try to do an one size fits all, that will our capability.
Don't try to reinvent the wheel.

Semper Fi

Response by SGT Sunny Lalingua made Aug 6 at 2017 10:41 PM

SGT Sunny Lalingua — Sun, 06 Aug 2017 22:41:03 -0400

Whomever has put this idea forth as a valid question misunderstands the dynamic difference of each of these branches' primary mission. The Marines are the tip of the spear. First in. The Army is the spear. Stays in. Once the spear has embedded itself, Marines, the territory must remain occupied, Army, to sustain advancement, the Army continues to thrust itself against more and more territorial occupation until the goal has been achieved.

Response by PO3 Andrew Kelly made Aug 6 at 2017 11:13 PM

PO3 Andrew Kelly — Sun, 06 Aug 2017 23:13:39 -0400

WHile I was serving I got into the habit of thinking of the Marines as two general mission paths, First were the garrison marines, those stationed shoreside and fulfilling roles similar to their Army counterparts but at the same time set aside specifically for them.
Then there were Marines I encountered the most often, the Fleet Marines. These are the troops stationed aboard a ship that fulfills the original function of the Marines, an armed response force both for the physical defense of the ships they are stationed but also capable of taking the battle from the ship to the enemy wherever they are encountered, a function that the Army is not trained to perform.
Back in basic, we sat a lecture that still sticks with me, an explanation of the functions that each branch fills in the defense of our nation. To the Navy falls the security of our sea lanes and our passage there upon.
To the Army goes the job of the prosecution of our armed might upon the enemy and the main burden of combat.
The Air Force is tasked with air superiority.
And then there are the Marines, and in addition to the shipboard tasks already described they get one more dirty job that they train for from day one. To create the beach heads so the Army can be brought in safely to do their jobs. And with notable exceptions like D-Day that is how it has been done.

So aside from my fondness for our misbegotten stepchildren, (we used to say the best way to tick off a marine was to ask them what Department was listed on their ID card) I do think that consolidating the Marines with the Army would both be a disservice to both branches but also would not create the smoothing out of logistics the proponents of this plan seem to think would result since the mission of the Marines is so intertwined with that of the Navy.

Response by GySgt Paul Nichols made Aug 6 at 2017 11:55 PM

GySgt Paul Nichols — Sun, 06 Aug 2017 23:55:59 -0400

Right now we have one service that is always 'hungry' to prove itself; the Marines. We always operate with the assumption that we have to do more with less. This has benefited the country and numerous politicians. We always go that extra mile in peacetime and in war because we operate with a knowledge that just maybe we are redundant. If the services were combined the US would no longer have a 'hungery service'. With as many worldwide commitments currently and more probably in the future; can the nation afford to have a single service to do all land operations? While we live under the umbrella of 'First to fight' could a national Army politically do what the Marines can do? Hearing that the Marines were sent in is totally different than hearing the Army was sent in. Merging the ground combat forces of the US could actually limited our country's ability to respond without escalating. Just food for thought from a long retired 0369 Funny. S/F.

Response by PFC Tim Danaher made Aug 7 at 2017 12:03 AM

PFC Tim Danaher — Mon, 07 Aug 2017 00:03:32 -0400

I agree with the Staff Sargent we go through some serious conditioning to become what we are! I have been a Marine since 1985 and I would NOT want to see these 2 combined!!

Response by PO2 Steven Hardy made Aug 7 at 2017 12:49 PM

PO2 Steven Hardy — Mon, 07 Aug 2017 12:49:56 -0400

I think that there might be some elements of the Marine Corps that could be absorbed into the Army, but not the whole service. You'll never get the Army up to speed with interoperability with the Navy, Coast Guard, and allied naval forces: certainly not without spending far more money.

Response by LCpl James Schleich made Aug 7 at 2017 2:56 PM

LCpl James Schleich — Mon, 07 Aug 2017 14:56:16 -0400

Definitely not! If my memory serves me correctly they tried to make the Marine Corps. part of the Army and it was a short lived disaster.

Response by PO1 James Booker made Aug 7 at 2017 4:24 PM

PO1 James Booker — Mon, 07 Aug 2017 16:24:43 -0400

The USMC should be fully incorporated into the Department of the Navy, the Air Force into the new "Army Air corp" and a new "Cyber/Space Command" incorporate all of the appropriate assets from all four. Thinking the USMC will ever make another opposed beach landing is foolish...so why spend so much preparing/training/equipping for such? Other than their uni's...their mission is hard to differentiate over in "the 'ghan" from the Army now anyhow.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 7 at 2017 4:32 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 07 Aug 2017 16:32:08 -0400

Overall, I would say no. Firstly it would be logistical nightmare. The Army is so over and under strength in a variety of jobs that it isn't even funny. I believe adding the Marine Corps to the equation would bring more problems than solutions. Then you'd have to take into account the differences not only in rank structure, but the rate at which the two branches promote their SMs. There's also the difference in doctrine taught to the SMs from each of their respective services. Then we need to look at what are we going to do with all of the USMC's fixed wing and rotary wing assets? They don't use the same helicopters as the US Army, and the Army doesn't use fixed wing A/C. Where are we going to get the funding to buy additional AH-64s, UH-60s and etc for the USMC pilots? What about training the pilots for the different platforms? Do the USMC SMs

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 8 at 2017 8:56 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 08 Aug 2017 20:56:59 -0400

Ultimately we should all consolidate. Besides the duplication of effort among services being almost wasteful think of the promotion ability and varied duty stations that would open up!

Response by PFC Thomas Tilden made Aug 12 at 2017 5:24 PM

PFC Thomas Tilden — Sat, 12 Aug 2017 17:24:36 -0400

No. It would sap the esprit de corps of the Corps. And the non-combat arms Army (and I am Army Infantry, so I am already crazy,) would weigh the Corps down with their bullcrap, and the Combat Arms of both would never be the same. Both services need an archrival who they grudgingly have to give some respect too, if for no reason to inspire each to work to be better than the other.

Response by PFC Thomas Tilden made Aug 12 at 2017 5:36 PM

PFC Thomas Tilden — Sat, 12 Aug 2017 17:36:26 -0400

Two axioms apply:

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
and
"If it's stupid, but it works, it isn't stupid."

As an Army Infantryman, not only "NO," but "FUCK NO!" Jarheads joined to be "Marines." We who go into harms way by choice are attached to our traditions and symbols. I joined to be an Infantry Soldier. Don't try to take that away; the results will be negative.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 12 at 2017 6:55 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 12 Aug 2017 18:55:20 -0400

The Marines are a department of the Navy.

Next Slide!!!

Response by MGySgt Christopher Bailey made Aug 17 at 2017 6:58 AM

MGySgt Christopher Bailey — Thu, 17 Aug 2017 06:58:44 -0400

Sure. Fiscally speaking it makes sense. The Marine Corps could still be unique within whatever consolidated branch might be created. Similar to Special Forces/Seals. I am a retired Marine and one can still feel special for earning a unique qual or title within another branch. Change is hard but I believe we will see it in the future.

Response by Cpl Bernard Bates made Jan 13 at 2018 7:52 PM

Cpl Bernard Bates — Sat, 13 Jan 2018 19:52:13 -0500

The training is different mentally. I was 18 when I got out of bootcamp & Itr. I felt like I could lick the world. The best way to put it is: "Its not the big dog in the fight, Its the fight in the dog. That was 60 years ago. Marines take care of their own. If I was ordered to charge head long into the enemy I would have been scared as hell but I would have done it. We are marines for life. That EAG. insigna is The best. I was on Okinawa in the early 60,s The 3rd marine divison was a combat ready division We had duty sections 25% of the company was always on standby The Army Navy & Air Force had dependents. The marines didn't. The saying was : If we wanted you to have a wife we would have issued you one. The politicans that after WW2 we didn't need marines anymore they could be part of the army. When the Korean war started the army almost lost south korea. If it hadn't been for the regular and reserve marines South Korea would be communist today.

Response by Cpl Brian Ruby made Jan 19 at 2018 11:08 PM

Cpl Brian Ruby — Fri, 19 Jan 2018 23:08:54 -0500

Never! Semper Fi!

Response by SSG Harry Herres made Jan 27 at 2018 11:13 PM

SSG Harry Herres — Sat, 27 Jan 2018 23:13:13 -0500

I was an E-5 at fort sill in 69. As an a instructor, I taught many a marine. The are marines and are not able to function in a normal way. Marines are Marines. Thank you for being you but how you march to your old cadence is beyond me. God bless all you service members

Response by SCPO David Ingram made Mar 21 at 2018 8:28 PM

SCPO David Ingram — Wed, 21 Mar 2018 20:28:41 -0400

The only reason this hasn't happened is because it would be cost prohibitive, imagine the cost of teaching 200,000 marines to write with pencils instead of crayons. Take it easy troops just adding a little levity to the conversation. This country gets its money's worth and a lot more from both USMC and USA. But you got to admit the crayon thing was pretty funny.

Response by CPO Dave Royce made Mar 31 at 2018 8:24 PM

CPO Dave Royce — Sat, 31 Mar 2018 20:24:17 -0400

Absolutely not

Response by PO1 Mark Scheelk made Apr 5 at 2018 8:15 PM

PO1 Mark Scheelk — Thu, 05 Apr 2018 20:15:54 -0400

No if any thing the airforce should be reabsorbed back into the army air corps.

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Apr 5 at 2018 9:00 PM

SGM Bill Frazer — Thu, 05 Apr 2018 21:00:03 -0400

Combat orientated, yes- trained much different. USMC really pushes weapons marksmanship, they are much more integrated than Army. Habitually their Armor, Air, Artillery units train together all the time. If you are light infantry- you have NO Armor, no Air but what is flying around, and only your Arty folks which are always attached to you. Also- the Army does not like charging straight up the middle of a beach on an Amphib assault!

Response by SGT Keith Meredith made Apr 6 at 2018 12:42 AM

SGT Keith Meredith — Fri, 06 Apr 2018 00:42:49 -0400

No they should not Im army proud but why would you do away with your naval infantry that are trained in water born specialty missions you need a fighting force sold dedicated to naval security besides that why they already train both forces together in common field task that need to be addressed but in some cases by the department of the Navy

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 6 at 2018 10:08 AM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 06 Apr 2018 10:08:53 -0400

Well honestly the air force should go back to the army air corps and marines stay the same as always the bullheaded rough tough sonofabitches that is the angry brother of my beloved branch the army can’t say anything bad about them they are the most loyal people there are along side the army

Response by SSgt David Carnahan made Apr 6 at 2018 10:14 AM

SSgt David Carnahan — Fri, 06 Apr 2018 10:14:23 -0400

There is a very distinct difference in the doctrines of warfare. Both are needed. In addition the Marine Corps is the branch of service protected by Congressional law.

Response by TSgt Joe Stigers made Apr 6 at 2018 10:26 AM

TSgt Joe Stigers — Fri, 06 Apr 2018 10:26:56 -0400

Response by TSgt Joe Stigers made Apr 6 at 2018 10:27 AM

TSgt Joe Stigers — Fri, 06 Apr 2018 10:27:48 -0400

No. Two separate forces with different missions

Response by GySgt Keith Rininger made Apr 6 at 2018 12:16 PM

GySgt Keith Rininger — Fri, 06 Apr 2018 12:16:01 -0400

Slit my wrists and let me bleed out! I earned and maintained the title United States Marine through sweat and hard work. 75% of the Army could not be Marines, they are weak and undisciplined, also undertrained. Also most fear what it takes to be a Marine, that's ehy they joined the Army. And I honestly dont care if I offend anyone. Maybe turn it around...cherry pick the best from the Army and turn them into Matines....if they can hack it. Keep a smaller Army as they are basically usless the wsy they are trained now. They are simply very well equipped pussies, not War fighters. Semper Fi.

Response by CPL Zack Hartmann made Apr 6 at 2018 3:01 PM

CPL Zack Hartmann — Fri, 06 Apr 2018 15:01:38 -0400

Totally agree with LTC Paul Labrador

Response by Cpl Dustin Watkins made Apr 6 at 2018 4:31 PM

Cpl Dustin Watkins — Fri, 06 Apr 2018 16:31:55 -0400

It’s been attempted many times before and has actually gone through a couple times. But
Marines and the Corps has remained a component of the Armed Forces because America wants a Marine Corps. That and they’ve done tests, training and comparisons with The Army showing that it can do what the Corps does in the past and yea the Army can, the Marines have always performed better and more efficiently at the tasks expected of Marines. Not only that but the Marine Corps is a department of the Navy. Doesn’t make sense to me to consolidate a fight force rooted in Naval operations into the Army. So if you asked me if the Marines should just consolidate into the the Navy then I could get behind that since they both are already tied so close together.

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 6 at 2018 6:37 PM

Maj Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 06 Apr 2018 18:37:02 -0400

You never make something better by lowering the standard. The Big Army is big but it also has a massive “10%”

Consolidating the two services would end the Marine Corps as we know it. The PC generals have almost ruined it already and this would be the death nail. Instead the Army should just make its standards real, increase discipline, and give its SNCO’s and NCO’s real authority. Start indoctrinating soldiers instead of training them. Make the Army a culture not a college loan. I became a Marine to fight and to live an austere life not get trinkets on my uniform and night classes. Don’t consolidate just be less “gay”. In the meantime have a crayon and chill

Response by PFC Christopher Tucker made Apr 6 at 2018 7:18 PM

PFC Christopher Tucker — Fri, 06 Apr 2018 19:18:24 -0400

Never

Response by Cpl Lester Winn made Apr 6 at 2018 7:33 PM

Cpl Lester Winn — Fri, 06 Apr 2018 19:33:39 -0400

No!

Response by Cpl Jimmy Queen made Apr 6 at 2018 7:39 PM

Cpl Jimmy Queen — Fri, 06 Apr 2018 19:39:19 -0400

Dumbest thing I ever heard, plus someone said the Army is faster to the fight?

Response by CSM John Ross made Apr 6 at 2018 7:39 PM

CSM John Ross — Fri, 06 Apr 2018 19:39:45 -0400

No the Army and Marine Corps have much different traditions that set them apart from each other, way back when there was the tradition and the showing of respect when an officer entered the mess hall , someone would sound off at ease , no one stude up or anything special but it became a tradition, then someone took it away , when I retired after 27 plus years of service I told all my nco’s don’t let them take anymore of our tradition fight like hell for them , some are small but they makes each service different and distinct, don’t let them screw this up

Response by Cpl Gonz Perez made Apr 6 at 2018 7:43 PM

Cpl Gonz Perez — Fri, 06 Apr 2018 19:43:08 -0400

No. It makes no sense.

Response by SSG Michael Raysses made Apr 6 at 2018 8:27 PM

SSG Michael Raysses — Fri, 06 Apr 2018 20:27:41 -0400

The five branches have always specialized in some area.... that's a given aspect.... but a COMBINED FORCE, of STRICTLY THE BEST....,is certainly worth doing guys.... have force recon in line with delta or the rangers..., throw in a few USN seals.... and that's a force no ONE in their right mind would mess with... our SPECIAL FORCES are named that, because they SPECIALIZE in those areas of combat, that most troops wouldn't do on a bet!... had the privilege of serving with some of those BEST while I served.... these guys were awesome and just alotta fun to train with!... they KNEW we didn't understand everything they do on a daily basis... and we're just great teachers and instructors.... my hats off to them.... they ARE our CRAZIEST TROOPS... and we're lucky to have them!!!... OOORAH/HOOAH!!!... SSG Mike Raysses, USAR-Ret..(1980-2007)

Response by Cpl Kendall Ronningen made Apr 6 at 2018 9:15 PM

Cpl Kendall Ronningen — Fri, 06 Apr 2018 21:15:05 -0400

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 6 at 2018 9:24 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 06 Apr 2018 21:24:46 -0400

Why get a rid of the one branch that is readily deployable within 48 hours, no act of Congress needed?

Response by AN Robert Clark made Apr 6 at 2018 10:56 PM

AN Robert Clark — Fri, 06 Apr 2018 22:56:07 -0400

I’m going to have to agree with SSgt Luck. No way should they combine. The Marines are it’s own entity. All jokes aside from the brotherly (and sisterly) love of the Navy and Marines the cohesiveness between us would fracture with a merger of the Army I feel. no offense to our Army family. But the history between us and the Marines is too deep to be intruded apon.

Response by SSgt Doug Burris made Apr 6 at 2018 11:13 PM

SSgt Doug Burris — Fri, 06 Apr 2018 23:13:54 -0400

Fuck no the CORPS IS A RELIGION THAT NO ONE UNDERSTANDS unless you are a MARINE!

Response by PO1 Tim Martin made Apr 6 at 2018 11:28 PM

PO1 Tim Martin — Fri, 06 Apr 2018 23:28:20 -0400

No other service should be consolidated into the Navy ,Marines this team is the tip of the spear it would be disastrous

Response by SSgt Shawn McNickle made Apr 6 at 2018 11:34 PM

SSgt Shawn McNickle — Fri, 06 Apr 2018 23:34:52 -0400

Absolutely not. There is a mentality the Marine Corps has that the Army simply lacks. And, the Army is completely overloaded with unnecessary officer positions that make it harder to focus on combat effectiveness as officers become more politicians as they rise through the ranks.

If we want to win wars we will always need the Marines as a separate entity.

Response by MAJ Jerry Ammon made Apr 6 at 2018 11:37 PM

MAJ Jerry Ammon — Fri, 06 Apr 2018 23:37:41 -0400

I know both services would do so, grudgingly. Both services would loose their unique identities, but the writing has been on the wall for awhile. I’m not only a former medical officer; I was also an Infantry NCO, before I went to med school. 30 years ago, I would have said “Hell, no”, and not in so kind of words, but it’s only logical

Response by PO3 Randall Knight made Apr 7 at 2018 4:13 AM

PO3 Randall Knight — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 04:13:16 -0400

The only thing that is the same between the Army and the Marines is that they both use rifles. Marines are trained for a naval operations. They train for amphibious assaults and to provide security to sensitive areas of a ship. The easiest way to provide the proper training is to be under the control of the Navy.

Response by PO2 Chrisj Kelau made Apr 7 at 2018 5:47 AM

PO2 Chrisj Kelau — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 05:47:46 -0400

The Marine Corps is part of the Navy, even though they do share similarities with each other, Marines were born from the sea. Honestly, my opinion as the acronym for ARMY stands for...Arent Really Marines Yet ! They should stay the course and not consildate.

Response by Sgt Ron Boyce made Apr 7 at 2018 7:25 AM

Sgt Ron Boyce — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 07:25:16 -0400

Well thought out and as objective as you can get. Now consider this, the changes you are suggesting to create an Army unit that mimics the Marine mission would in effect create a Marine Corps inside the Army. That new unit would have to work with the Navy so much that it's culture would like the Marines, diverge from the standard Army culture, much as SF does. Why recreate the wheel? I sincerely doubt the copy cat version will ever be as good as the original and having an infantry force that trains and operates differently than the Army is not a bad idea. The Marines independently develop methods and equipment that might not have been considered in the Army and vice versa, thus creating a competitive environment to test ideas. That's a good thing. Finally, there is such a thing as Esprit de Corps and the Marines have shown again and again that it is a tangible asset.

Response by SFC Roger Hudson made Apr 7 at 2018 7:31 AM

SFC Roger Hudson — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 07:31:21 -0400

Army and Marines have dogged each other for years but when a mission needs accomplished in tandem they have always prevailed. We are patriotic Americans first.

Response by Cpl Steven Ingram made Apr 7 at 2018 7:51 AM

Cpl Steven Ingram — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 07:51:24 -0400

Marine are a different! period

Response by PO2 Craig Finke made Apr 7 at 2018 8:37 AM

PO2 Craig Finke — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 08:37:21 -0400

Nope

Response by Cpl Nelson Perez made Apr 7 at 2018 8:50 AM

Cpl Nelson Perez — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 08:50:58 -0400

Hell no they shouldn’t combine the marines with any other branch

Response by Sgt Kevin Ball made Apr 7 at 2018 9:07 AM

Sgt Kevin Ball — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 09:07:48 -0400

The variety of branches provides greater diversity of thought and way of conducting defense operations. This makes it more challenging to attack us as a nation.

Response by PO3 Gary Dent made Apr 7 at 2018 9:20 AM

PO3 Gary Dent — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 09:20:36 -0400

No!! The Marines are nothing like the Army except in the event of JUST ground combat. They specialize in amphibious assault and first in!!! To me the difference in Marines and Army is like asking an Air Force pilot to land on a Carrier, in the air it’s the same job but taking off and landing are two different things!! And that’s just my opinion!!

Response by SrA David Heineken made Apr 7 at 2018 9:35 AM

SrA David Heineken — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 09:35:55 -0400

Leave the Navy/MC alone. The Air Force should be put back under the Army. Since It's separation it has never understood it's role. Support of ground forces/air superiority.

Response by SSgt Sean Hatton made Apr 7 at 2018 9:39 AM

SSgt Sean Hatton — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 09:39:54 -0400

No!!!! I served in both Marine infantry (0331) from 2000-2004 and Army infantry (11B) in the 101st from 2006-2011. There is a definite cultural and lifestyle difference between two, and the Marines have earned and command their place as a separate entity in our armed forces.

Response by 1SG Fred Campbell made Apr 7 at 2018 9:42 AM

1SG Fred Campbell — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 09:42:21 -0400

We are brothers in arms no matter which branch we serve in. Each of us have our own unique job to do. Keep it that way

Response by Sgt Terry Riley made Apr 7 at 2018 9:54 AM

Sgt Terry Riley — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 09:54:28 -0400

He'll no

Response by Sgt Terry Riley made Apr 7 at 2018 9:57 AM

Sgt Terry Riley — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 09:57:45 -0400

The few the proud

Response by Cpl Maria Miller made Apr 7 at 2018 10:00 AM

Cpl Maria Miller — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 10:00:39 -0400

NO! We are a different in many ways. No offense to my brothers and sisters in the Army. We don't just give out ribbons for throwing a grenade in boot camp. Our history is not the same nor is our ranking system. We don't call everyone who is E-5 and above "Sarge". They are called by the rank. E-5 is Sergeant, E-6 Staff Sergeant and so on.

Response by 1SG Dave Carello made Apr 7 at 2018 10:04 AM

1SG Dave Carello — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 10:04:06 -0400

Absolutely NOT!!!! Not that it is even going to happen, but for arguments sake. Having been a Soldier for a good part of my life, including my Father, Brothers and Son I say. We, the Armed forces of the United States are a unique and unparalleled group of Men and Women. My Uncle was a United States Marine WWII Korea Viet Nam and I absolutely adored him AND the Marines. My path was different but I can say. There is NO better ARMY in the world but the U.S. Army and all it's Field Armies, Corps, Divisions both Infantry and Armor, Brigades, Airborne, Rangers, Special Forces, and every Medic, Engineer, MP, cook and clerk and all the rest. And, we have our own History and customs within each of those formations. But, how could America exist without our beloved Marine Corps? It can't and I can say clearly and proudly that I WANT THE MARINES! I want them to continue their proud traditions and history because it is part of Americas history. Finally, I want the Marines because, they are MARINES! Semper Fi! From a Solider! (This We'll Defend)

Response by Cpl Eddie Kraemer made Apr 7 at 2018 10:13 AM

Cpl Eddie Kraemer — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 10:13:03 -0400

Obviously, the person who asks the question doesn't understand the purpose of the Marines or the Army.

Response by Cpl Roger Weissinger made Apr 7 at 2018 10:25 AM

Cpl Roger Weissinger — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 10:25:50 -0400

No disrespect to any branch of the military but as a former Marine we earned that title. Each branch has their own function and that’s how it should be left. I would think those who have earned the Green Beret would say the same thing. Once a Marine always a Marine!

Response by PFC Ed Ruble made Apr 7 at 2018 10:45 AM

PFC Ed Ruble — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 10:45:34 -0400

Decide whether you want to be a marine or join the army, but don’t try to consolidate. There is a reason that the marines are still aroun even though the other branches do what we do, and that reason is that we do it best. marines work hard for their EGA, and that is why we take pride in who we are. Don’t give our pride to someone that hasn’t put in the work for it.

Response by Sgt Ronald Norman made Apr 7 at 2018 10:48 AM

Sgt Ronald Norman — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 10:48:03 -0400

I have nothing but respect for all branches. I also belive we each have or special uses and should be left to carry on as we are

Response by LCpl Dave Oliver made Apr 7 at 2018 12:24 PM

LCpl Dave Oliver — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 12:24:32 -0400

Not just no but He'll NO!
Chesty must be rolling over

Response by 1SG Keith Dukes made Apr 7 at 2018 12:49 PM

1SG Keith Dukes — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 12:49:01 -0400

When someone asks me the difference between the army and marines I always use this as a comparison. You put a group of soldiers and marines is a room and tell them to go through the wall. The marines will bloody themselves trying to break through the wall. The soldiers will simply walk through the door!

Response by PFC Andre Mackey made Apr 7 at 2018 1:52 PM

PFC Andre Mackey — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 13:52:46 -0400

The Marines are just a department of the Navy that's how it is that's how it always should and will be. I just don't think certain logistical measures would be taken and it would take about 20 to 30 years for the Army and the Marine Corps to have a true camaraderie

Response by Cpl Christopher Woods made Apr 7 at 2018 1:54 PM

Cpl Christopher Woods — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 13:54:40 -0400

Just one word NO!!! We are the few the proud the Marines!!!

Response by CPL Gary Stuttle made Apr 7 at 2018 2:11 PM

CPL Gary Stuttle — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 14:11:30 -0400

The consolidation of the Army and Marines should have never brought up in the first place. Both have separate responsibilities and yet similar ones. Traditions should be honored and never forgotten. If any discussion of branch consolidation should be the Navy and Coast Guard.

Response by PV2 Daniel Van Linn made Apr 7 at 2018 2:18 PM

PV2 Daniel Van Linn — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 14:18:23 -0400

If it ain’t broke, it doesn’t need fixin.

Response by LCpl James Markov made Apr 7 at 2018 2:30 PM

LCpl James Markov — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 14:30:41 -0400

Two different organizations/cultures

Response by Cpl Brian Gavin made Apr 7 at 2018 2:41 PM

Cpl Brian Gavin — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 14:41:14 -0400

All arguing aside, the Marine Corps and army are two very different breeds. Their training is very different as well. You can see this in how each branch conducts warfare. You can also see what it in their Boot Camps. The Marines boot camp is both longer and harder, not necessarily harder physically but mentally. As it stands now the army’s marksmanship is garbage and their overall training is lackluster at best. You don’t see this with Marines Even during peace time, Marines train as if war is only a day. Personally I’ve seen this in both Iraq and Afghanistan as Army convoys would get fired on and just push through but Marines will stop and fight. This is not cowardice in the least bit it’s what each is trained to do. When you compare them side by side you can and will see an immediate difference. Also when I asked guys in the SF community they all say the same thing they’d rather be with Marines. So can you consolidate the two, sure it’s not impossible, but will it be overall beneficial no it won’t.

Response by PFC Michael Singletary made Apr 7 at 2018 2:48 PM

PFC Michael Singletary — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 14:48:43 -0400

Semper Fi

Response by LCpl Adam Mantei made Apr 7 at 2018 3:36 PM

LCpl Adam Mantei — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:36:33 -0400

I have respect for the ARMY but I don’t agree with the consolidation.

Response by PFC Robert Elliott made Apr 7 at 2018 3:36 PM

PFC Robert Elliott — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:36:47 -0400

Response by PFC Ryan Hultman made Apr 7 at 2018 3:41 PM

PFC Ryan Hultman — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:41:46 -0400

Two totally different branches. I was a soldier not a jar head. Everybody has their jobs. I do t want called a marine. I was a soldier. Nothing against them but marines and the navy are close to eachother. The Airforce was born out of the army. Keep everyone separate. Different goals different achievements

Response by Cpl Grant Roanhorse made Apr 7 at 2018 3:47 PM

Cpl Grant Roanhorse — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:47:11 -0400

No no no.

Response by PO2 Trey Copeland made Apr 7 at 2018 3:49 PM

PO2 Trey Copeland — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:10 -0400

Response by SSgt Robert Aarnes made Apr 7 at 2018 4:18 PM

SSgt Robert Aarnes — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 16:18:31 -0400

In my opinion, NO

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 7 at 2018 5:07 PM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 17:07:44 -0400

i say no. no for many reason. 1 army,navy,usaf. all these brances dont do any of the traning we do out traning is harder, more agressive, and prepares us for the front lines. you want to merge then you better go to marine corps bootcamp and show everyone you have what it takes.

Response by SGT Ken Baumgen made Apr 7 at 2018 5:14 PM

SGT Ken Baumgen — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 17:14:18 -0400

Two different animals. They both serve a different purpose. Leave it the way it is. And what would we do with all those crayons.

Response by CN Harold West made Apr 7 at 2018 5:16 PM

CN Harold West — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 17:16:15 -0400

Need to leave well enough alone. Combining any services will turn into a cluster.

Response by Sgt George Schofield made Apr 7 at 2018 5:41 PM

Sgt George Schofield — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 17:41:44 -0400

Look, I spent 8 years in the Marine Corps and then I got out with a Honorable discharge. After being out for 6 months I tried to back in the Corps, but they were not taking Former Marines at the time. So, I went into the Army and stayed for 2 years in the Artillery side as a 13B20. The difference between the 2 was like night and day. The Marine Corps must stay as the Corps only, if they consolidate the Army and Marine Corps together then the Marine Corps will lose. The Marine Corps is “the Few, the Proud, the Marines”. By the Corps staying small it has been able to train a better and elite fighting warrior, better than the Army. Hands down......

Response by SN Ricky Transue made Apr 7 at 2018 5:43 PM

SN Ricky Transue — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 17:43:03 -0400

Marines are the real men of the Navy

Response by Cpl Shawn Gular made Apr 7 at 2018 5:46 PM

Cpl Shawn Gular — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 17:46:54 -0400

hell no

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 7 at 2018 5:57 PM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 17:57:15 -0400

Sure, we can. Why not.

Response by LCpl Francis Weldon made Apr 7 at 2018 5:59 PM

LCpl Francis Weldon — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 17:59:43 -0400

Hell no! The Corps is a totally different animal from top to bottom. Keep them separate.

Response by LCpl Francis Weldon made Apr 7 at 2018 6:04 PM

LCpl Francis Weldon — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 18:04:49 -0400

Hmmm, if I'm correct to of our best fighting forces fall under The Department of the Navy (The Marine Corps and The Navy Seals!)

Response by GySgt Michael Flynn made Apr 7 at 2018 6:11 PM

GySgt Michael Flynn — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 18:11:49 -0400

Absolutely not!

Response by SPC John Beck made Apr 7 at 2018 6:13 PM

SPC John Beck — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 18:13:12 -0400

No way

Response by PO3 Paul Pawlicki made Apr 7 at 2018 7:01 PM

PO3 Paul Pawlicki — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 19:01:14 -0400

The mission is, and always will be, to defeat our enemy. Coordination of that effort remains with officers. A joint effort, including all branches will ensure that out team wins. We all bleed the same color and there is no branch more important than another. Especially today when a silly drone can wile us out. Think about that. We can be as physical as we want but some geek from miles away directing that drone can defeat Superman!

Response by Cadet 2LT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 7 at 2018 7:29 PM

Cadet 2LT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 19:29:15 -0400

The Marines are the ground force of the Navy. 10% of the Navy budget. Why would they ever go Army. It's set ans shouldnt change. With exception of the budget should be larger for the Marines. Though that may mess things up because Marines are agile and resourceful sue to the lack of resources.

Response by SSgt Heyward Campbell made Apr 7 at 2018 7:37 PM

SSgt Heyward Campbell — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 19:37:10 -0400

Having served in both services, the Army could not totally replace the Marines due to the naval warfare specific roll the USMC performs. The Marines also have a much more disciplined culture and the Army does not. This is very important when leading subordinates into battle. The Marine boot camp is much harder than Army basic training for a reason, Marines are all riflemen first and their MOS second. I liked being treated like an adult (a lot of the time) by my superiors in the Army, but I’d have followed my Colonel at the 11th MEU to Hell and back if he asked.

Response by LCpl Darren Owens made Apr 7 at 2018 8:28 PM

LCpl Darren Owens — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 20:28:48 -0400

What? Does the army need a men’s department too?

Response by Sgt Andy Watson made Apr 7 at 2018 8:53 PM

Sgt Andy Watson — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 20:53:11 -0400

I dont freak n think so my Dad served in the I am a Marine until the day I die. This would be an insult to our legacy.

Response by Cpl Nicholas Luevano made Apr 7 at 2018 9:08 PM

Cpl Nicholas Luevano — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 21:08:38 -0400

Because of global warming; which will add much more stress on third world countries in the future I do believe the Marine Corps will be needed in its traditional naval expeditionary role. If we continue to expand the Marine Corps and water down the training and requirements because of political correctness, then yes , you might as well get rid of a second army.
Because of technology and the ability to fly troops just about anywhere the Marine Corps are like one dollar bills: The Marine Corps exist simply because the American people want them.
I would simply let the navy absorb at lot of POG MOSs, and lose the PC agenda in training and recruitment and invest the money in being able to deliver the most effective / lethal MEU in U.S. history.
As the world gets hot, flat and crowded along with more and more failed states the MEU will be necessary.

Response by SGT Gerald Wilson made Apr 7 at 2018 9:13 PM

SGT Gerald Wilson — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 21:13:02 -0400

It will not work Army is Army marines something different ✌

Response by FN Tony Joseph made Apr 7 at 2018 9:48 PM

FN Tony Joseph — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 21:48:03 -0400

I can understand the savings involved in combining Army and Marines, but that would be the only advantage.

Let's take North Korea as an example. The Marines are a department of the Navy, so they have a way to get transported in mass to the western coast, while at the same time, our Army could be moving by land, from South Korea, or China, successfully dividing the North's army into 2 or more fronts to fight us.

Keep in mind, the Navy launching missiles from the ocean, and Air Force dropping bombs from above, a full on war would be over in a week.

Combining the branches would be a mistake. The friendly rivalries between each branch, motivates each of us to do our best.

Response by AN Lance Murdock made Apr 7 at 2018 9:54 PM

AN Lance Murdock — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 21:54:23 -0400

Only if the Army can come up the Corp standards .and amphipious training and Marines trained in airborne

Response by Pvt Scott Van New Kirk made Apr 7 at 2018 10:09 PM

Pvt Scott Van New Kirk — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 22:09:54 -0400

Marines don't earn the our beloved Eagle Globe and Anchor because we want to be in the ARMY. We are a different bread. Even those of us living the POG life. Even as junior Marines it makes our blood boil to see a young soldier talking buddy buddy with his/her superiors. Seeing countless soldiers carry their riffles by the rear site assembly (its no longer an issue with acogs) makes us want to punch a baby in the face. IF you want to disband the ARMY go ahead and do that. But don't compromise the Marine Corps.

Response by PFC Tommy Cash made Apr 7 at 2018 10:21 PM

PFC Tommy Cash — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 22:21:31 -0400

Yes they all the same it would improve the Marine corps by learning from the best soldiers in the world.

Response by LCpl Ian Moore made Apr 7 at 2018 10:30 PM

LCpl Ian Moore — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 22:30:41 -0400

Having been in both, the Army has far too much bureaucracy to be compared to the Marines, they are atrocious at marksmanship training, compartalize far too much (I was genuinely shocked when I was told that nobody in the platoon needs to know how to call for fire because we will have FOs attached if we needed fire support) and they don’t have fast movers. The Marine Corps would never take something that had to be earned through gallons of sweat, weeks of misery, and genuine suffering and give it to everyone to make the REMFs feel better like the Army did with the black beret.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 7 at 2018 10:39 PM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 22:39:35 -0400

It’s like you all forgot about the navy, as well as the marines being a branch of the navy

Response by PFC Mark Gwilt made Apr 7 at 2018 11:41 PM

PFC Mark Gwilt — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 23:41:03 -0400

No. Army and Marines have completely different missions.

Response by Sgt Artem Doudnik made Apr 7 at 2018 11:47 PM

Sgt Artem Doudnik — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 23:47:47 -0400

Only if the Marines will be doing the training from that point on.

Response by PV2 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2018 12:31 AM

PV2 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 00:31:47 -0400

From my experience the command elements can barely handle current matters like sharp EO. They can’t handle consolidating the branches bc that would mean the command would downsize at a division level making it Harder for matters to be resolved. On the other hand consolidation may put an iron fist in the fight. Sad part is we can’t solve our own problems at home within our own units.

Response by CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2018 12:46 AM

CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 00:46:52 -0400

Fat chance if this ever happens in my lifetime.

Response by PO1 William Willis made Apr 8 at 2018 12:48 AM

PO1 William Willis — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 00:48:26 -0400

Response by PO3 Aaron Law made Apr 8 at 2018 1:03 AM

PO3 Aaron Law — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 01:03:27 -0400

Response by Sgt Robert Lorrison made Apr 8 at 2018 1:22 AM

Sgt Robert Lorrison — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 01:22:06 -0400

Not only is this insulting, it’s also fiscally irresponsible. The US Army has a total of 1,018,000 uniformed personnel (including reserves AND national guard) as of 2017, and a corresponding budget request of $148 billion. The Marine Corps total force numbers a mere 220,500 (including reserves), but manages to operate quite effectively with a budget request of just $23.4 billion.

For the sake of saving time by not forcing you to take off your shoes to count past 10, that’s a total drain on taxpayers of $145,383 per soldier and $106,122 per marine. Need I say more?

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2018 1:31 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 01:31:49 -0400

Why not just raise the army’s standards and cut out all the useless people we need workers not leaches

Response by Samuel High made Apr 8 at 2018 3:08 AM

Samuel High — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 03:08:32 -0400

The Marine Corps has always been a Department of the Navy and should remain as such. The Marine Corps also serves a different function than the Army. Where as the Army is a Sustaining Force, the Marine Corps in general is an Invading force. Keep them separate.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2018 4:16 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 04:16:04 -0400

Response by Cpl Frankie Cadek made Apr 8 at 2018 6:01 AM

Cpl Frankie Cadek — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 06:01:35 -0400

As a marine, hell no. We got enough to deal with and coming from experience, we shouldn’t have to deal with the Air Force too!! We’re part of the navy and that’s hard enough for a young marine, keep it the way it is and move on.

Response by Sgt Raymond Villagomez made Apr 8 at 2018 6:59 AM

Sgt Raymond Villagomez — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 06:59:31 -0400

NOPE

Response by Sgt Gerald Cayetano made Apr 8 at 2018 8:42 AM

Sgt Gerald Cayetano — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 08:42:19 -0400

Who comes up with these ideas? And have they thought about it from a financial aspect or is it just an idea right now?
To me, one of the initial problems would be where to put which troops, and the emotional aspects that affect human beings. There would be some obvious integration, and that would set up various levels of hazing.
Not to mention, how would boot camp get handled? Will Marines still get produced, or will we all be Army doggies?
I feel like this could happen, but it would take a few years of planning before it would actually get done. And I really don’t see the point.

Response by PO2 Keith Raposa made Apr 8 at 2018 8:48 AM

PO2 Keith Raposa — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 08:48:04 -0400

I think the consolidation of services will vanish the identity of the services our neighbor to the North Canada have consolidated there branches of the military the difference between them are the emblems on their uniform

Response by 2LT Ronald Reimer made Apr 8 at 2018 9:27 AM

2LT Ronald Reimer — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 09:27:39 -0400

Absolutely not. Unique elements, unique missions. They have separate histories and traditions. I believe that it would be a mistake to combine them.

Response by Cpl Aaron Rife made Apr 8 at 2018 10:12 AM

Cpl Aaron Rife — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 10:12:56 -0400

Absolutely fucking not! Because the Marines have won battles and created a reputation that no other branch can compete with. Hell the marines won battles with gear that the Army couldn’t operate. There is a reason the marines are the best branch of service. The coolest part was the marines were created by a couple of drunk guys at tun tavern that wanted to kill the enemy. And succeeded ever since!

Response by Nick Morris made Apr 8 at 2018 11:09 AM

Nick Morris — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 11:09:48 -0400

Depends how they’d be integrated, at what level(ie training or fleet) and whose standards are going to be used

Response by CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2018 11:11 AM

CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 11:11:05 -0400

Should USN and USCG? All branches are already consolidated. It's called DOD. Your question appears periodically on RP and for brevity's sake, No.

These posts end up with about 10% of the people actually discussing the pro/cons, 10% saying let's all get along, and the rest talking trash about each other, citing history, specific units or their failures and successes or similar. The only people that can truthfully discuss both services are those that have served in both. Serving along side is not the same. Everyone other than draftees makes a choice, and they all have different opinions. All the trash talk doesn't address the question, and makes all that play that game look bad. There are things that each service does that the other can't do as well without training to that standard. I chose the Marines and am glad that I did, but I think no less of anyone from another service. It takes a Total Force to get the job done.

Response by COL Paul Hernandez made Apr 8 at 2018 11:36 AM

COL Paul Hernandez — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 11:36:25 -0400

Really? It is quite obvious the First Class Petty Officer has nothing better to do than to stir the pot. Maybe keel hauling or carrying buckets of steam will return him to his senses.

Response by Capt Jamison Kooi made Apr 8 at 2018 11:38 AM

Capt Jamison Kooi — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 11:38:49 -0400

Itmakes no sense creating a larger bureaucracy within an already large bureaucracy. The marines have proved over time that pushing leadership down to a smaller unit level is more effective. Why in the world would DODnow turn around and try to push leadership up??

Response by Sgt Todd Warneka made Apr 8 at 2018 11:46 AM

Sgt Todd Warneka — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 11:46:46 -0400

Absolutely not. I thought it was a mistake when the army and marine corps combined some mos schools. I saw a lack of instruction in some of my marines when they got to the fleet. We had to spend weeks retraining them. Although the army and marine corps are on the dame team, we have different missions. Nothing against the army, but they don't do what the corps does. Semper Fi.

Response by Cpl Randy Elser made Apr 8 at 2018 12:03 PM

Cpl Randy Elser — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 12:03:52 -0400

Here is a good question. How come a Marine doesn’t have to attend any other service boot camp if he wants to join that branch, but any other service man as to go through Marine Corp boot camp? How come the Marines rifle range is harder than any other branch?

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2018 12:10 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 12:10:53 -0400

Absolutely not. It is legitimately insulting to any marine.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2018 12:16 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 12:16:04 -0400

My professional opinion on this subject is no I do not believe the two branch’s should consolidate together. Both branches and their service members take pride in not only their branch but their title in their branch it would be an insult to all those hard working Services men and women who have put in the time and effort to be what they are now, and it would be a bigger slap in the face to those who came before us to help set the honor and traditions in both branches.

Response by LCpl Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2018 12:29 PM

LCpl Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 12:29:39 -0400

If I get called a soldier I swear I’ll get out

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2018 12:35 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 12:35:48 -0400

That’s a HELL NO!!

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2018 12:39 PM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 12:39:42 -0400

Response by Cpl Carlos Rodo made Apr 8 at 2018 1:07 PM

Cpl Carlos Rodo — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 13:07:55 -0400

I think you are forgetting the fact that Marines are sent while Army and the rest are waiting on congressional approval. President doesn’t need approval to send in Marines.

Response by Cpl Carlos Rodo made Apr 8 at 2018 1:09 PM

Cpl Carlos Rodo — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 13:09:59 -0400

I think we are forgetting that Marines are sent in while Army and the rest are waiting on congressional approval. Pres doesn’t need that for Marines.

Response by GySgt Joseph Sebelisr made Apr 8 at 2018 1:17 PM

GySgt Joseph Sebelisr — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 13:17:50 -0400

As a former Marine and a daughter that serves as a Dr. in the Army branch has it's own standards and mission and neither would want to be joined in any way.

Response by PO3 Lance Johnson made Apr 8 at 2018 1:42 PM

PO3 Lance Johnson — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 13:42:20 -0400

Hell no

Response by LCpl Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2018 3:08 PM

LCpl Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 15:08:56 -0400

No it takes a special breed 2 be a marine

Response by Cpl Dustin Dingman made Apr 8 at 2018 3:21 PM

Cpl Dustin Dingman — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 15:21:36 -0400

Very thoughtful response. But I'm not sure an Army component could ever duplicate the psychological structure of an entire organization that proudly recruits on the so slogan "we don't promise you a rose garden."

I'm not sure anything could take the place of that sort of self-selection.

Response by SGT Reggie Gates (RETIRED ) made Apr 8 at 2018 3:35 PM

SGT Reggie Gates (RETIRED ) — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 15:35:38 -0400

The Marines do not need To be consolidated with Army but need to be separated from under the Navy. The Marines have earned that honor a long time ago.

Response by Pvt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2018 3:39 PM

Pvt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 15:39:24 -0400

SSgt Stephanie Luck
I agree i just got my EGA im not about to give it up make the army go though our boot camp and train like us then we can get rid of the army.

Response by MSgt Curt Heying made Apr 8 at 2018 3:39 PM

MSgt Curt Heying — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 15:39:52 -0400

Absolutely not

Response by Cpl Patrick Whitwam made Apr 8 at 2018 3:46 PM

Cpl Patrick Whitwam — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 15:46:29 -0400

No. Absolute respect for the Army, but what most people don’t realize is the fundamental difference between the Marine Corps and the Army. The Army BY LAW requires a 2/3 vote of Congress to deploy. The Marines can invade and occupy anywhere around the world without a 2/3 vote of congress and a declaration of War. We, Marines, are the only Armed force that the president can deploy without asking for congressional permission. The Corps can go in and close with and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver and only answer to the President for up to 90 days without a Declaration of War. So
Both services fill both short and long term combat operations. That’s why they shouldn’t be consolidated.. and the most important reason.. if you haven’t earned the title Marine then you will never understand the mentality of a Marine.

Response by SFC Bill Payson made Apr 8 at 2018 4:08 PM

SFC Bill Payson — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 16:08:29 -0400

They could with some training because their missions are different it would be difficult to do

Response by PFC Bernie McCarty made Apr 8 at 2018 5:42 PM

PFC Bernie McCarty — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 17:42:48 -0400

My respect to the Army. I survived 12 weeks of hell to earn the title of Marine. I will always be a Marine. Second generation. There is no myths associated with Marines, our legacy is written throughout the history books. Since November 10, 1775 to present WE ARE MARINES The Few and the proud

Response by PO1 David Neumann made Apr 8 at 2018 6:12 PM

PO1 David Neumann — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 18:12:31 -0400

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2018 6:20 PM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 18:20:50 -0400

There's a reason the branches are separated as is, the army is designated to be an occupying force, case in point, Fallujah, in which the Marines took, the army moved in, lost it, and the marines took it again. It's like putting a midget on an NBA all-star team, he's just gonna be on the sidelines as-is, so keep him in is own league.

Response by SPC Steven Moses made Apr 8 at 2018 6:27 PM

SPC Steven Moses — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 18:27:06 -0400

Marines should be integrated into the Army. I would make the Marines a unit similar to the Army Airborne units. Current Marine infantrymen would be awarded the Marine tab, and you would have to go through Marine school to earn the Marine tab.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2018 6:46 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 18:46:55 -0400

No, Simply put we have two different missions now with that being said I guess the better talking point is can the Army do the Marine Corps mission as well as it's own ? The world may never know haha

Response by Cpl Larry Ricker made Apr 8 at 2018 6:49 PM

Cpl Larry Ricker — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 18:49:42 -0400

We’re all a part of the DOD. Isn’t that enough? Army and Marines are not as similar as some might think. Different tools for different jobs. Consolidation would be a logistical and emotional nightmare. Make no mistake, Army and Marines work together all the time with no problem. What’s so wrong with the current system is what I want to know.

Response by AN Patrick Reavley made Apr 8 at 2018 6:55 PM

AN Patrick Reavley — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 18:55:36 -0400

Hell No!!! The army has grown soft and it’s been documented that soldiers coming out of basic in the army are undisciplined and ill prepared. The marines have been and continue to be the most well trained soldiers in the military aside from navy seals

Response by Sgt Kenneth Barnhart made Apr 8 at 2018 7:18 PM

Sgt Kenneth Barnhart — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 19:18:41 -0400

Every Marine is a infantryman first, the job they are assigned to is a secondary job. This is not the case for the Army. All Marines are trained to be on the front line. Integrating the two should not happen, for any reason. They serve two different purposes. Plus, SSgt Stephanie Luck is absolutely correct, Marines have earned their EGAs. I do not know any Marines that would give up their EGA, and anyone who has only been in the Army has not earned the right to wear an EGA, unless they complete Marine Corps boot camp. SEMPER FI Marines!!!

Response by CPO Paul Klein made Apr 8 at 2018 7:51 PM

CPO Paul Klein — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 19:51:06 -0400

The primary objective of each branch of service differ. Marines are a mobile, quick strike force, while the Army are a strong, massive fighting group. The Navy controls the seas, while the Air Force controls the skies. Their individual strengths and weaknesses complement and support each other, but without serious adjustments, they should not be combined or unified.

Response by CPL Mike Pullen made Apr 8 at 2018 8:14 PM

CPL Mike Pullen — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 20:14:37 -0400

I think it's possible for the the services to fight together. I don't think it's a good idea to combine them. The tradition, honor, and esprit de corps, is different. I am an old soldier. I don't believe l even think like an old marine. I don't consider either better, but definitely different.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2018 8:22 PM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 20:22:33 -0400

Response by PVT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2018 8:51 PM

PVT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 20:51:32 -0400

I was Army, during the years of operation desert freedom my son is a Marine on deployment and though I see the analytical argument I have to say no. There is a reason and purpose for all branches of the service and when push comes to shove I want the arm in there fast yet the Marines will take care of the shove soften that sh t up and clear the way don’t screw this up all missions are a head game also you see the US Army coming in its oh shit I messed up you see the USMC coming in and now even the devil is afraid leave it that way work together yet apart

Response by SPC Don Mayfield made Apr 8 at 2018 9:02 PM

SPC Don Mayfield — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 21:02:22 -0400

I have the highest regard for the USMC but I don't think they u should consolidate because the two branches fulfill two separate roles.

Response by GySgt Tracy Thomas made Apr 8 at 2018 9:39 PM

GySgt Tracy Thomas — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 21:39:33 -0400

Objectively speaking, Marines are a different breed! If you have never served in the Marine Corps you will NEVER understand! No offence but please stay in your lane!

Response by SSgt Michael Bowers made Apr 8 at 2018 9:47 PM

SSgt Michael Bowers — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 21:47:31 -0400

Negative! Absolutely not. Consolidating any combination of the four branches may look good on paper from a fiscal standpoint. The financial bottom line has been a factor in just about every decision in the military, both strategically and Tactically. We all know and dreaded hearing our Commanders say in briefing “We are going to do more with less”. Absolutely NONE of them wanted to have to tell us that, but the fact of the matter is there is a finite amount of money to fund the entire US Military. Technology is extremely expensive. The more high tech the military becomes, the less money you have for day to day operations. Consolidating the branches will extend how much can be accomplished with every single dollar spent. The amount of money saved on basic and technical training alone would be astonishing if you did not have to pay for the Branches to all have separate bases for training, separate training Standard Operating Procedures, separate uniforms, separate and different equipment. That’s just the tip of the iceberg. They will save billions by consolidating Operational Commands, Bases, day to day operations, logistics...
HOWEVER, at what cost would that come to the effectiveness of the most dominant and lethal military in the history of human existence? Is it really worth it to lose the overall effectiveness and lethality of having troops that are so specially and highly trained to perform highly specialized and intricate jobs and tasks that allow the US Military to operate so percisely that you could set an atomic clock by it??
The only logical and rational answer to those questions is NO.
Each branch as it’s own invaluable modus operandi that they bring to the table, along with it's own unique strategical and tactical mission objectives, that are required so that the military can adapt to any possible situation. Whether it is in combat, maintenance, transportation, Intelligence, logistics... Each have there unique skill set and are training to be more at home in certain environments, equipment to meet different statically and tactical objectives.
Common Core training is not working in our Educational system in this country. Well, it would work if what we strive to be as a nation is just mediocre. So why would we want to consolidate and combine any of our four military breaches in order to implement common core training, common core bases, common strategical and tactical modes of operations??? You only would if you wanted a mediocre military to face a NON common core world.
Now factor in a separate and fully operational US Space Command.
I will take four separate, high trained and specialize branches (Seven including the National Guard, Coast Guard and Space Command) bringing what they do to the table to form the world greatest military over a common core combined mediocre military EVERY TIME.
Just my opinion. I’m not say’n... I’m just say’n.
AIR FORCE! HARDCORE!! WORLD CLASS!!!

Response by LTC Don Pelton made Apr 8 at 2018 9:48 PM

LTC Don Pelton — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 21:48:52 -0400

So many reasons not to, but so little time to explain.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2018 10:49 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 22:49:00 -0400

alright, as an analitical stand point, yes, its possible for the Army and Marines to merge, when it comes to actually making it where they mesh or have the successes that the other have had, thats another story. The Marines for one by stand point of history are shown to be more tenacious and willing to go and destroy things than the Army, the Corps is also known to get big things done with the minimum of equipment, thats the same with some army units, yes, but that is how we are taught as a whole. The command structure is different, small unit leadership in the marines starts at the base, enabling leaders from the junior enlisted ranks and having NCOs as fire team or squad leaders instead of needing an officer or staff noncommissioned officer

Response by SPC Aaron Barnard made Apr 8 at 2018 10:54 PM

SPC Aaron Barnard — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 22:54:16 -0400

The Marines are a Department of the Navy. The consolidation if any should be army and airforce

Response by Col Darrell Combs made Apr 8 at 2018 11:46 PM

Col Darrell Combs — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 23:46:44 -0400

Lt Col Labrador gave a rational discussion. My only comment would be “ How likely would it be that any realistic “ Streamlining” of anything would be achieved by by such a merger? “sceptical”. Also an old Joint Specialty Officer USMC Ret

Response by A1C Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2018 11:59 PM

A1C Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 23:59:40 -0400

I agree that a combined marine/army branch would not work well especially considering how the branches came to be and their respective nature's, well described by Col. Labrador. But what if we were to effectively achieve the goal of decreasing the quantity of both branches and streamlining communication and whatnot within the DoD by rejoining the Navy with the Marines and the Army with the Air Force? With the Army starting to perform more missions and ops similar to those carried out by USAF personnel, and the infantry doing less and less fighting and more support of local militias, if we were to adapt the Army Infantry mission to be more support based vrs the traditional boots on the ground. And combine the Army MOSs with their AFSC counterparts, and do a similar situation with the Marines and Navy (forgive me I'm not as knowledgeable on Navy and Marines history and current information; I grew up as an Army brat and am now an Airman.) Not to say we don't need boots on the ground, but establishing air superiority and maintaining worldwide surveillance and communication is the one thing we can all agree will always make or break any op, no matter how big or small. Obviously some kinks to be worked out and massive debate on how to effectively merge leadership and chain of command, but, what if?

Response by A1C Andy Leduac made Apr 8 at 2018 11:59 PM

A1C Andy Leduac — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 23:59:42 -0400

Yes.

Response by Cadet MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 9 at 2018 12:27 AM

Cadet MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 00:27:17 -0400

Is this an actual thing that could happen? Or is this just a debate?

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 9 at 2018 12:49 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 00:49:02 -0400

I’ve trained along side Marines and I’m Army National Guard. Every one of them said they would gladly go to war with me any day... I think we could all benefit and learn from one another. Just my opinion.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 9 at 2018 1:22 AM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 01:22:09 -0400

From what I've noticed and have discussed with Marines that have served their 4 then had gotten out to transfer to the army. Is simply the fact that they have a major lack of discipline and ability to get blasted and not freak out to a point of inoperablity is shocking lower then what it should be. That would possibly lead to a weak link in a formation that could cause causltys. I may only be a pfc. but history of the Marine Corp is pounded and imprinted into are beings from the time we are told to step off that bus onto yellow foot prints till the time we leave the Corps. A exclent example of the Marine's ability to adapt overcome and strive in the face of uter destruction would probably be the Korean war. Before the war broke the Presidnet at the time along with Army high command were trying to envelope the Marine corps and it's assets. Only to need them once the army was divided and had their backs to the wall on that little corner. Then in a assault thought to never succeed was pulled off which allowed the Marine's to land half way up the Korean peninsula and secure a foot hold effectively cutting enemy supply lines and driving the North out of the South. That an the frozen Chosen, a nother point of the army's disregard of discipline where when the sector they were entrusted with clasped they basically all out retreated in a cluster storm leaving men and gear behind. The marine's excited in a organized withdrawal keeping both the dead and equipment in there possession. History repeats it's self and the army it seams has turned into a mass organization consintrated not on quality but shear numbers. I respect the army and there abilities, but to say one can do a job is one thing the ability to is another I apologise if I offend any higher rank then my own of any service I'm yet again only a pfc.

Response by Sgt Arnaldo Dorvilus made Apr 9 at 2018 6:21 AM

Sgt Arnaldo Dorvilus — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 06:21:32 -0400

If this were to happen, then the Army should be absorbed into the Martine Corps. Our less structure is less confusing, since not every rank after E5 can be called Sarge. Plus, our baseline physical fitness requirements are a bit higher, which would weed out certain members. Just bring over their equipment. Being in supply, I know that much of the gear we purchase, especially for artillery and tanks, the Army already has.

Response by SPC Steven Hannah made Apr 9 at 2018 6:43 AM

SPC Steven Hannah — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 06:43:46 -0400

The Marines belong with the Navy. That's where they came from. The same with the Air Force, they belong with the Army.
It just makes more sense with their capabilities and operations.

Response by PO3 Robert Doyle made Apr 9 at 2018 8:09 AM

PO3 Robert Doyle — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 08:09:27 -0400

Absolutely not,even Marines need hero's

Response by Cpl Richard Simmons made Apr 9 at 2018 8:21 AM

Cpl Richard Simmons — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 08:21:30 -0400

I am a Marine, but I will take this from a logical stand point. The Army and Marine Corps have two different overall missions when conducting combat operations. Marines go take objectives and the Army holds them. As Marines, we hold aquatic specilties that the Army does not. Our relationship with the Navy is strong and on every carrier group you will find a MEU with it. We have tougher physical regulations. What need is there to combine the two services? The Marine Corps gets a small chunk of DOD funding. We have very few of our own bases. We cost the government very little compared to every other branch. Our boot camp is the longest, our PFT the hardest, and our weapons qual the most indepth. It is a waste of time to even consider this proposal.

Response by PO3 Joe Gough made Apr 9 at 2018 9:42 AM

PO3 Joe Gough — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 09:42:22 -0400

No that would be like saying the Air Force should take over the Navy because we have planes....not at all to even remotely say the Army is almost identical than the Marines is a load of crap. Excluding special forces there is nobody who is more dangerous than a Marine, they train harder and longer than anyone else

Response by SSgt David Tornel made Apr 9 at 2018 10:05 AM

SSgt David Tornel — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 10:05:01 -0400

I thought the main reason for the USMC was a quick reaction force that could be deployed to guard or insure vital American interests abroad without the need for congressional approval?
If they consolidate, that opens up a lot of questions. What’s changing and is it for the better?

Response by Cpl Bill Kerwin made Apr 9 at 2018 10:44 AM

Cpl Bill Kerwin — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 10:44:04 -0400

The eagle globe and anchor is to sacred !!! Marines lead the way the army gets the credit !! Marines are door kicking knuckle dragging machines and no if the mess up they get punished!!!

Response by AN Earl Alexander made Apr 9 at 2018 10:55 AM

AN Earl Alexander — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 10:55:54 -0400

Just No!

Response by David Clare made Apr 9 at 2018 11:49 AM

David Clare — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 11:49:02 -0400

There is a valid argument to both sides of this debate. But if we are talking logistics and not tradition and pride in a specific service branch here are some things to consider. Initial training of troops. What is the mission we are going to train them for? Both Army and Marine initial training prepares them to serve as infantrymen. They are ground fighters whose mission is to take the battle to the enemy and overcome whatever gets in their way. Not a problem to combine the two at this level and set a standard all are required to meet. But that should be the standard for all services. Outside of that what is the plan for specialized units within a combined service? As stated, the Army and Marines serve two different functions on many levels. How will this effect special operations units? Are you going to remove combat units from the Navy and Air Force and pull all special operations type units into one service? Each branch has its own units of elite warriors with specific skills for specific missions. Wasn’t that the whole idea of a special operations command to combine these units under a central command to utilize as needed for specific missions? You only address the Army and Marines in your question, but how would Seals and Para rescue fall into to a single ground force operation? I agree that politics and logistics among the branches is a challenge and makes the mission harder at times, but when you consider the specialized training and equipment that goes into preparing people for the task we expect them to do these differences are important. A simple way to look at it is this. Any doctor can treat the common cold, but would you let any doctor work on your spine? Marines are a specialty unit and train for specific type missions. The Army, while capable of meeting the same objectives, has a different mission, larger command structure, and a lot more moving parts. Can we have one service? Yes. But within that service you are always going to have the specialized units whose training and equipment makes them the right choice for a specific task. In the end won’t you simply eliminate one specialized fighting force to replace it later with another? And in the process kill an institution that has left its mark on the fabric of this country. Let the Army be the Army and let Marines be Marines. Both have earned the honor of the uniform they wear it with pride.

Response by SGT Aaron Greenwood made Apr 9 at 2018 11:57 AM

SGT Aaron Greenwood — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 11:57:52 -0400

No I've served in both and there is a separation in mindset and training method. Just like the green berets have a different mission from the seals the Marines and Army have separate mission sets that each is uniquely suited and trained for. While you could consolidate those missions you would end up with a force that was not as effective at either.

Response by LCpl Troy Anderson made Apr 9 at 2018 12:02 PM

LCpl Troy Anderson — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 12:02:14 -0400

No I'm sure my response is emotional and that is the point Marines do not join the corps to get money for college or learn a trade or get a bonus we join because we want to be warriors in the highest sense

Response by LCpl Troy Anderson made Apr 9 at 2018 12:07 PM

LCpl Troy Anderson — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 12:07:38 -0400

We know our history and in battle we absolutely believe that we cannot be beaten and God bless you if you do because we won't quit we won't give in and we won't run if you integrate us you will lose that

Response by Sgt Cody Brault made Apr 9 at 2018 12:11 PM

Sgt Cody Brault — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 12:11:42 -0400

It’s not the fact the Army could take on the role of the marine corps it’s the fact of size and accountability. The Army already lost its Air Corp because it was too much of a logistical nightmare to handle. If you don’t segmeant the responsibility and assets across different departments and limit funding to each you will have a higher operating cost and a much larger margin of error. There already is a huge problem in both branches of tracking gear and keeping things up to date. If you roll the corps into the army the problem will only get worse because we won’t be reduceing man power or removing equipment, only adding more burden into one system.

Let’s not forget the Marines are the departmeant of the Navy. All you would be doing is moving the Marines to be a department of the Army causing the army to split its budget off in to its new asset and force the navy to do cross accounting with the army to accommodate for its travle needs. Every time two branches have to share money things get slower and more paper work needs to be created which is worse for readiness. From a supply chain view it would be a bad choice to consolidate the two. If you are looking to cut cost we need to look at uniform weapon systems and tech contracts across the whole DOD and even the possiblity of having one combat uniform altogether. Things like this will save millions and cut back and redundant contacts across the DOD.

Response by Cpl Danny Johnson made Apr 9 at 2018 1:56 PM

Cpl Danny Johnson — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 13:56:56 -0400

No!

Response by LtCol Don Kaag made Apr 9 at 2018 2:35 PM

LtCol Don Kaag — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 14:35:02 -0400

Then-Commandant General Vandegrift, commander of the 1st Marine Division on Gualcanal and a holder of the MOH, answered this question in testimony to the Congress post-WWII. Go listen to his speech...

Response by Ricky Weeth made Apr 9 at 2018 3:04 PM

Ricky Weeth — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 15:04:08 -0400

No. The Marines are a vital part of our Naval Force. That has always been first and foremost.

Response by PFC Levi McCaig made Apr 9 at 2018 3:08 PM

PFC Levi McCaig — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 15:08:32 -0400

NO! NO! NO! F**k NO!

Response by Cpl Bruno Bertone made Apr 9 at 2018 3:16 PM

Cpl Bruno Bertone — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 15:16:35 -0400

The branches are structured for a reason. The Marines work for the Navy and such need to stay that way. There is a big difference between all branches and we all serve a purpose

Response by Sgt Minor Campbell made Apr 9 at 2018 3:23 PM

Sgt Minor Campbell — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 15:23:53 -0400

Negative

Response by Sgt Daniel Campbell made Apr 9 at 2018 3:36 PM

Sgt Daniel Campbell — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 15:36:49 -0400

Nope!

Response by SSgt Nathan Blodgett made Apr 9 at 2018 4:05 PM

SSgt Nathan Blodgett — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 16:05:57 -0400

Never.

Response by LCpl Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 9 at 2018 4:32 PM

LCpl Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 16:32:06 -0400

Id say definitley not mainly just on the mindset and how marines hold themselves compared to army

Response by PO3 Jonathon Black made Apr 9 at 2018 5:25 PM

PO3 Jonathon Black — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 17:25:18 -0400

No.

Response by PO2 Ricardo Reyes made Apr 9 at 2018 5:30 PM

PO2 Ricardo Reyes — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 17:30:03 -0400

No, because the US Marine Corp is specific and their job is wholly different that the US Army.... I'm ex-Navy and I know the Marine job is uniquely different than the Army's. There is no Fleet Soldier. They are not shock troops. The US Marine Corp is so varied they allowed their own Air arm comprising of fixed-wing Fighters to chopper gunships... they have their own culture and job specifics... different from the Army's ....

Response by PO1 Riley Greenwood made Apr 9 at 2018 5:44 PM

PO1 Riley Greenwood — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 17:44:14 -0400

MM1(SS) Retired. The US Marine Corps is an intragal part of the Navy and not a separate branch. The Navy would not be the Navy without the US Marines. The Marines complete the Navy. Command and control between the Navy and Marines is virtually seamless

Response by SSgt Thomas (Toby) Weir made Apr 9 at 2018 5:46 PM

SSgt Thomas (Toby) Weir — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 17:46:29 -0400

I don’t think so. I spent six years in the Army as a Military Policeman.

Response by CPO Brett Rowe made Apr 9 at 2018 6:25 PM

CPO Brett Rowe — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 18:25:46 -0400

The constitution guarantees payment for a navy, which the usmc is a part of. The army or Air Force is not. Therefore the marines should be in charge of the army and the navy over the Air Force.

Response by Cpl Nic Fenner made Apr 9 at 2018 6:45 PM

Cpl Nic Fenner — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 18:45:13 -0400

Probably not. This has been tried before,and it's failed before. The Marines and Army fill out different roles to different levels of acuity. The Marines can be anywhere in 24 hours, the army takes alot longer to mobilize. The army is amazing at large group tactics, while the Marine Corps is all about small unit leadership. Merging the two probably wouldn't be as productive and there'd be years, possibly decades of growing pangs.

Response by AN Gary Bowman made Apr 9 at 2018 7:10 PM

AN Gary Bowman — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 19:10:04 -0400

I was just in the Navy, I just read that we were less combat oriented same as the air Force. I will leave it to the more important more combat oriented guys.

Response by PO3 Clint Stuart made Apr 9 at 2018 7:39 PM

PO3 Clint Stuart — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 19:39:53 -0400

Response by LCpl Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 9 at 2018 7:43 PM

LCpl Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 19:43:00 -0400

Negative

Response by SPC Andrew Jaycox made Apr 9 at 2018 7:43 PM

SPC Andrew Jaycox — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 19:43:29 -0400

I’m sorry but if the marines have this superiority complex I don’t want them in my army. They say quality over quantity. Well the army has both. You don’t see me disrespecting your branch because we’re all a team right? It’s not like you have a choice anyway. They say it’s happening it’s happening.

Response by PO1 Paul Carlson made Apr 9 at 2018 7:52 PM

PO1 Paul Carlson — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 19:52:23 -0400

These two branches perform very different operations. Yes, they both are combat oriented and CAN assault the same type of positions in most cases, but when you look at the overall specific yrsining required to operate with the Navy or the size of an actual Army Corps during a major operation, this question becomes silly at best. There is bo more consolidation we can do without ending up with a force that acts like the H-60 helicipter. While overall the performance is very good, the specific capabilities lost by the replaced helos is not an equitable trade for the forces needing that specific support. I worked with 60’s and like them very much, but I am qualified to say they are not Huey, a Sea King, a Sea Knight nor a Stallion. Commonality has benefits but sometimes the cost is bot worth the trade!

Response by Cpl Michael Torres made Apr 9 at 2018 8:02 PM

Cpl Michael Torres — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 20:02:05 -0400

I served in both the Marines and Army, 1999-2003, and 2008-2014. To consider consolidating both branches is ridiculous. The training, the mission and way of life are worlds apart

Response by SGT Mark Hostetler made Apr 9 at 2018 8:19 PM

SGT Mark Hostetler — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 20:19:45 -0400

Response by SSgt David Rosario made Apr 9 at 2018 8:57 PM

SSgt David Rosario — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 20:57:14 -0400

I would agree with a big No. and as i see most military personnels opinions here some are very correct but slme have some misguided personal opinions. As we know the Marines have planes, and the Air for forces has more than we do. The Marines have ground capabilities and yet again the Army has more tanks and troops than we will ever do. But once again this topic has been raised over and over again throughout many presidencies. Do we need a Marine Corps? And the answer is No. but America wants the Marine Corps for many reasons stated throughout this thread and more. So i do not agree on combining the services, it would be a horrible enviroment for everyone in the transition period. It should be either we have a Marine Corps or not.... thats it.

Response by LCpl Chris Brown made Apr 9 at 2018 9:03 PM

LCpl Chris Brown — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 21:03:53 -0400

You have to have Congress "ok" army. I went to Iraq with NO Congress anything. Add that to your stuff LTC Labrador. WE don't need those USELESS ties ok to do crap!

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 9 at 2018 9:22 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 21:22:19 -0400

Fuuuuuck no

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 9 at 2018 10:09 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 22:09:24 -0400

Why not fix the entire DOD structure. Instead of dissolving the Corps into the Army or Navy structure, why not make every service member run the vigors and maintain the standards of a Marine.

Response by SGT Michael Boner made Apr 9 at 2018 10:19 PM

SGT Michael Boner — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 22:19:35 -0400

No, communication usually happens when it needs to by combat elements in the field. I would just like to see more joint training if possible. I know there are a lot of logistics that would have to be involved. I say let the Marines be special, because they're special. So special.

Response by Damien Ohlweiler made Apr 9 at 2018 10:21 PM

Damien Ohlweiler — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 22:21:20 -0400

See people on here are being insulted and that's wrong I'm prior service was in the army. I do agree you can't combine the army and the Marines. We are two very different entities. We both serve our own purposes. So thinking about it doesn't serve any purpose but to get people aggravated.

Response by LCpl Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 9 at 2018 10:30 PM

LCpl Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 22:30:17 -0400

NO !!! They have to earn the EGA if they want apart of this brotherhood

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 9 at 2018 10:37 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 22:37:43 -0400

Good luck getting that by General Dunford.... it’s wont pass by any means. Plus the Secretary of Defense General Mattis.... it wouldn’t pass! EVER! Sorry to say it but if you put any Army unit against any Marine unit they would be crushed without a doubt...

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 9 at 2018 10:38 PM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 22:38:14 -0400

Apparently the navy wants us to go along with marine covers and put ranks only on our chests instead of covers so no I don't thing the marines and army should join. However the navy has been saying for years that the seabees will be switched to a marine mos but that hasn't happened yet.

Response by SMSgt Pete Rose made Apr 9 at 2018 10:47 PM

SMSgt Pete Rose — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 22:47:47 -0400

I agree. It’s not a bad idea to rethink our military structure to become more efficiently in line with the current world construct. Everyone has ( and rightly so) individual service pride. However, considering our national economic health is part of our National Security Strategy, perhaps we should consider a few things. First; It may not be far-fetched to reinvent the Army Air Corps. Consolidations of missions, unit integration already exists within the Army and Air Force. Both services conduct aerial warfare, the Army is arguably the largest “ customer” of the Air Force. Second; There are so many common military specialties. Why have multiple schools? Aircraft maintenance, Medical, Air Traffic Control, Combat Survival, etc. Here’s a novel idea. One Basic Military Training academy with maybe a smaller follow on course that’s Branch specific.

Response by Cpl Dalton Gladden made Apr 9 at 2018 10:49 PM

Cpl Dalton Gladden — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 22:49:08 -0400

Not to be emotionally an asshole. I do agree that the Corp and Army hold similarities. However the Corp has a unique responsibility, work in small groups/ squads. They move quickly and are not weighed down by the obstacles of a larger fighting force. That’s typically a win situation. Keeps the targets off guard while the others arrive. That’s our purpose and always has been. Are we the best ? I think so, but we all have our elites.

Funny thing, I read USN & USAF?

Response by Cpl Donald Polcyn made Apr 9 at 2018 11:11 PM

Cpl Donald Polcyn — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 23:11:33 -0400

I don't see it, Marines are groomed to a different mental standard. You are THE Marine corps.

Response by PO1 Bradley Well made Apr 9 at 2018 11:14 PM

PO1 Bradley Well — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 23:14:17 -0400

I think all branches should be consolidated into one. The only branch that has the know-how to run all facets of the military is the US Navy. They sail, fly, and fight.

Response by SPC Rodolfo Vasquez made Apr 10 at 2018 12:05 AM

SPC Rodolfo Vasquez — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 00:05:05 -0400

Well they should stay right where they r BUT if they can get the job done quicker & save a lot of lives y not!

Response by MSgt Harold Ishoy made Apr 10 at 2018 12:08 AM

MSgt Harold Ishoy — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 00:08:36 -0400

Due to the uniqueness of the missions of in this instance; the United States Marines and the United States Army it is like asking boatbuilders to work side by side with bricklayers to put horseshoes on a horse. They are superbly capable at their stated purposes and mission but would hardly compliment one another.

Response by SPC Matt Hawver made Apr 10 at 2018 12:19 AM

SPC Matt Hawver — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 00:19:16 -0400

As an Army vet, No way! We both have our traditions and pride in our own Services. Leave it alone.

Response by Cpl Edwin Redmond made Apr 10 at 2018 12:27 AM

Cpl Edwin Redmond — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 00:27:13 -0400

Sustainable force and attacking force! Simple. Marine Corps doctrine, “...close with and destroy...”

Response by LT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 10 at 2018 1:13 AM

LT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 01:13:34 -0400

This idea has apparently been floated around since the end of the Civil War. According to the book Brute about Gen. Victor Krulak, the two services have two different philosophies about warfare. This was apparent in WW1, WW2 and Korea. After WW2, the Army got lax in training and discipline whereas the Marines did not and the results were apparent on the field after China entered the war. They are both meeting different needs. Why change success?

Response by Sgt Marc Blount made Apr 10 at 2018 2:05 AM

Sgt Marc Blount — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 02:05:25 -0400

I am a Marine Vet. Served 10 years (0331). No disrespect to any other Branch of Service and most definitely no disrespect to the individuals who have responded to this. I am going to try to keep emotions aside...... realistically? Yes it can be done. But why, why would there ever be a need to do so? This is a Logistical nightmare on every level. If any of you have ever been in a unit that has disbanded or even moved home stations... so much gets lost in the transition. It would take 3-4 years just to draft a realistic plan of attack KEYWORD: REALISTIC. Now let’s say somehow congress approves this, and the all starts rolling. Who will be in charge? Who will go where? Will there be a stop loss put into place, because our contracts clearly state the Service in which we sign up for. Now let’s say 2 months into this transition while all the training is happening, all the orders are waiting to be filled and all the duty stations and MOS’s are trying to reach or maintain quota, A war breaks out. Will we be ready or will we have our heads up our asses cause no one will have a clue on whose in charge, what unit has what responsibility and heaven forbid the head shed won’t be arguing over whose dick is bigger. I think a move like this would leave our country Vulnerable to attacks

Response by LCpl Paul Kegley made Apr 10 at 2018 2:17 AM

LCpl Paul Kegley — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 02:17:48 -0400

No. I don't believe that the two branches are even near compatible. Neither side would want this in my opinion. Both of these forces have their own traditions and pride. Semper Fi.

Response by Sgt Marc Blount made Apr 10 at 2018 2:21 AM

Sgt Marc Blount — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 02:21:25 -0400

SIDE NOTE..... The Marine Corps Dress Blues is the sexiest uniform on the planet.....

Response by Cpl Randy Sherer made Apr 10 at 2018 3:12 AM

Cpl Randy Sherer — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 03:12:12 -0400

I say no, do not consolidate any of the branches. Our Corps is sacred to us and mixing that level of pride with a clearly lower level is irresponsible at best. I have no issues with other branches, respect all of them but the Corps is different because of the men who earn the title. Anyone who thinks there is no difference is kidding themselves

Response by Cpl Randy Sherer made Apr 10 at 2018 3:16 AM

Cpl Randy Sherer — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 03:16:57 -0400

Put more simply, the Army is the Army and Marines are different in so many aspects there would be more sense in eliminating our beloved Corps altogether. You'll want it back soon enough

Response by Cpl Andrew Torabpour made Apr 10 at 2018 3:44 AM

Cpl Andrew Torabpour — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 03:44:38 -0400

Keep the combat element and aviation. Give the rest to the army.

Response by SPC Chris Beebe made Apr 10 at 2018 3:52 AM

SPC Chris Beebe — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 03:52:57 -0400

ex 13B, 10th mtn, OEF '09 and '11, groundpounded my 2nd tour.
I'd say no because they serve two different purposes. The marines are much more of a frontlines focused branch than the army, I'd say more about the objective of breaking up the enemy lines, and the army generally comes in, mops up the rest, and secures the front lines. The army is more of a jack of all trades, the marines tend to be focused.

Response by A1C Jordan Thomas made Apr 10 at 2018 4:08 AM

A1C Jordan Thomas — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 04:08:26 -0400

From what I understand I personally like the current setup between branches. As a logical standpoint would it make more sense if the branches that relate with the other ie: marine-navy and army-Air Force were the ones consolidating with each other? I mean marines and coast guard more or less still have Dept of the Navy on their seals?

Response by Sgt David Crawford made Apr 10 at 2018 5:45 AM

Sgt David Crawford — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 05:45:35 -0400

Absolutely not !! The USMC is home of "The Few / The Proud " ! I did not spend 4 years of my life ( 19 weeks boot camp/22 weeks of schooling/ 2 trips to Viet Nam-combat) to be integrated to another branch !!? OOOORAH !!!!

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 10 at 2018 6:15 AM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 06:15:45 -0400

The only components that may be smart to combine is SOCOM. MARSOC is preferably new to the world compared to the Green Baretts. Shit what what I’ve heard they train MARSOC. Other than that Marines earn the title and Soldiers have their own Traditions along with combative tactics. All Marines can pick up a rifle and fight, only infantry in the Army can.

Response by LCpl Jeffrey Lamphear made Apr 10 at 2018 6:25 AM

LCpl Jeffrey Lamphear — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 06:25:16 -0400

There has alway been a consolidation with the Corps being under the dept of the navy , you wanna consolidate put the AF back under the dept of the army and leve the Corps as it has always been.

Response by Sgt John Zuccarini made Apr 10 at 2018 6:47 AM

Sgt John Zuccarini — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 06:47:40 -0400

This would end whatever branch the USMC consolidated in to. There will be years of segregation then the Marines would shatter every record, good or bad. It’s a bad way to be able to use Marines on American soil.

Response by Cpl Justin Knight made Apr 10 at 2018 7:45 AM

Cpl Justin Knight — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 07:45:18 -0400

You cannot separate camaraderie and tradition aside from any argument in regards to the United States Marine Corps.

Response by Sgt Bernard Owens Sr. made Apr 10 at 2018 8:11 AM

Sgt Bernard Owens Sr. — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 08:11:25 -0400

No the Marines are an exceptional force unlike any other branch we tale pride in all that we do no matter what it is

Response by PVT Shane Gutierrez made Apr 10 at 2018 8:23 AM

PVT Shane Gutierrez — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 08:23:00 -0400

The way i see it theyre all serving their country. There are people scattered throughout all branches who could beat each other i dont care about earned anything and consolidate in this sense does mean to put them together not expand and fix fml this why i felt like i was surrounded by idiots mostly in the military

Response by Sgt Jon Mcvay made Apr 10 at 2018 8:31 AM

Sgt Jon Mcvay — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 08:31:40 -0400

Even though both a very good. Both have a different custom. I would prefer to see them stay separate. I have had friends in both well all the branch's of service.

Response by PO1 Tim Martin made Apr 10 at 2018 8:38 AM

PO1 Tim Martin — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 08:38:45 -0400

Response by PO1 Ken Grey made Apr 10 at 2018 8:40 AM

PO1 Ken Grey — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 08:40:52 -0400

Yes

Response by SGT Sheryl Lowery made Apr 10 at 2018 9:00 AM

SGT Sheryl Lowery — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 09:00:17 -0400

I am an Army Veteran and I do not agree with this. Although it takes all of the military to win a war, combining these two will not be beneficial. I am Army all the way, and my first page did not say call the marines. That being said let's us do our jobs. Combine Air Force and navy if you want, but the Marines already have the Navy to help them. We all have a mission to do so let us do our mission and marines do theirs.

Response by SCPO Jeffrey Curran made Apr 10 at 2018 9:41 AM

SCPO Jeffrey Curran — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 09:41:42 -0400

Marines already fall under the Navy for all practical purposes, it is the simplest way to go.

Response by SSgt Jenn Radley made Apr 10 at 2018 10:07 AM

SSgt Jenn Radley — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 10:07:16 -0400

No on all accounts, each service has their unique mission set and the senior leaders in charge of each have been groomed to run them across their careers, there's no comparison or similarity in missions... leave it alone!

Response by PO2 Gail Buckwash-Frick made Apr 10 at 2018 10:27 AM

PO2 Gail Buckwash-Frick — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 10:27:14 -0400

No way no how, the USMC is the Best Trained fearist Infantry branch of all the armed forces.

Response by CMDCM N Chris Amsler made Apr 10 at 2018 10:40 AM

CMDCM N Chris Amsler — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 10:40:32 -0400

Yes, consolidation could be done, but I see no reason that it should be done.

Response by SSgt Paul Niedens made Apr 10 at 2018 10:43 AM

SSgt Paul Niedens — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 10:43:46 -0400

Tun Tavern ,Archibal Henderson
The Halls of Montezuma, Shores of Tripoli,Iowa Jima ,Tarawa, Devil Dogs, Battle of Bella Woods, Quada Canal ... what group of zeros came up with this?

Response by SSgt John Hughes made Apr 10 at 2018 11:04 AM

SSgt John Hughes — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 11:04:29 -0400

The has always had a need for an amphibious ability, this is the USMC and why it within the Department of the Navy and not an independent service.

Response by SSG Richard LaVergne made Apr 10 at 2018 11:19 AM

SSG Richard LaVergne — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 11:19:06 -0400

NO! I served with both the Army and attached to the USMC while in the Navy. They are different entities altogether. They should not be consolidated.

Response by SP5 Mike Vinion made Apr 10 at 2018 11:26 AM

SP5 Mike Vinion — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 11:26:14 -0400

No. Every branch has their own skill set. I served side by side with with Marines Navy and Air Force in Iraq. Each skill set made everything run smoothly as it can possibly get in a war zone.

Response by Cpl Ralph Clark made Apr 10 at 2018 11:57 AM

Cpl Ralph Clark — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 11:57:57 -0400

Being a marine is a mindset, when they were drafting in the Marine Corps during Vietnam how many draftees were happy that they were drafted into the Marine Corps??? In my thinking recruits have two reasons for not joining the Marine Corps,1. They have family that was in another service and they want to follow them. 2. They do not want to go through Parris Island South Carolina!!!!!!

Response by Cpl Rick Reddick made Apr 10 at 2018 12:13 PM

Cpl Rick Reddick — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 12:13:08 -0400

He'll no

Response by Cpl Rick Reddick made Apr 10 at 2018 12:16 PM

Cpl Rick Reddick — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 12:16:27 -0400

The marines are always expeditionary. They go at a moment's notice.

Response by Cpl Rick Reddick made Apr 10 at 2018 12:21 PM

Cpl Rick Reddick — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 12:21:18 -0400

I noticed in the last few paragraphs it was stated the ar.y would have to do this and that to be up to the level of the corp. The corps has always been able to do more with less. That is what is pounded into or minds. It will never work.

Response by Maj Susan Myers made Apr 10 at 2018 12:35 PM

Maj Susan Myers — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 12:35:47 -0400

Response by SP5 Charles Lazarus made Apr 10 at 2018 12:38 PM

SP5 Charles Lazarus — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 12:38:24 -0400

No, both have similarities, but both are still unique, and should remain seperate.

Response by SSgt Eric Morton made Apr 10 at 2018 12:47 PM

SSgt Eric Morton — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 12:47:36 -0400

Just another way for Army Soldiers to get the title instead of EARNING it. It is amazing to be constantly reminded by other branches of what Marines are, what they do; what it’s like to see a Marine, train next to one, or have talked to a few. Despite it all, Marines are very comfortable and happy to be Marines. If a soldier, airman, or seaman ever wants the Marines to Merge with their branch, they should go to Marine Corps Boot Camp or Marine Corps OCS trainings and attempt to become a Marine.

I respect all of the branches as well; however, I am quite finished with other branches (primarily the Army branch) simplifying or speculating what the Marine Corps is or who Marines are. The Marine Corps operates under a COMPLETELY different mission, doctrine, and Standard Operating Procedure. The Marine Corps is required to be of its own entity because of the nature of its mission/capabilities.

Dare I remind ANY soldier of my brothers and sisters that went into harms way (again) because the “Army” was incapable of holding Somolian order; after Marines handed it over as a successful overtaking of hostils.

Either way, no intention for a this and that or tick for tack; the Marine Corps is fine just the way it is, how it is, and where it is as a US Military branch.

There is no mystique or “marketing strategy” about the Marine Corps. Marines are very aware of their status and attributes. It is the outside service members who obsess about a better and tougher IMAGE. Thusly, it is not to far reaching to find that the army think it best to incorporate the Marine Corps in order to claim the title vs earning it. Thanks, but no thanks!

Marine

Response by SPC Kyle De Wolf made Apr 10 at 2018 12:52 PM

SPC Kyle De Wolf — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 12:52:19 -0400

I was a soldier under Marine command in Iraq. I found the mixture of service branches confusing - Navy, Army, Air Force, Marines - especially with regard to rank structures, military courtesy, chain of command, etc. I thought it would have been simpler if all the services were combined. The Marines could still exist as a separate unit, but the bureaucracy could be leveled out and streamlined as between all the services.

Response by LCpl James DiClementi made Apr 10 at 2018 1:00 PM

LCpl James DiClementi — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 13:00:15 -0400

No way in hell

Response by Cpl Daniel Marsh made Apr 10 at 2018 1:06 PM

Cpl Daniel Marsh — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 13:06:25 -0400

No. The Esprit de Corps is essential to the effectiveness of the Marine Corp. This would be diluted heavily if this consolidation were to take place.

Response by Sgt Travis Amos made Apr 10 at 2018 1:12 PM

Sgt Travis Amos — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 13:12:17 -0400

I believe the maxim holds true that the US doesn't NEED the Marine Corps, they WANT the Marine Corps.

Response by Sgt Larry A Dunne made Apr 10 at 2018 1:25 PM

Sgt Larry A Dunne — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 13:25:43 -0400

Response by LCpl James Cotten Jr. made Apr 10 at 2018 1:50 PM

LCpl James Cotten Jr. — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 13:50:18 -0400

There is a reason why the Marine Corps is tasked with Embassy security and Marine 1. Simply put the are the We are the best. Semper Fi.

Response by PO2 Robert Adams made Apr 10 at 2018 1:56 PM

PO2 Robert Adams — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 13:56:09 -0400

No offense to either branch but he’ll no.

Response by Sgt Jeff Tversky made Apr 10 at 2018 1:58 PM

Sgt Jeff Tversky — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 13:58:58 -0400

Not only no! But Hell no!

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 10 at 2018 1:58 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 13:58:59 -0400

Absolutely not. The army doesn't earn the title marine, they shouldn't be considered in the same category or group. It's insulting to the ones that do earn the title marine.

Response by CW3 Ken Blanchard made Apr 10 at 2018 2:00 PM

CW3 Ken Blanchard — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 14:00:09 -0400

Why would you take a Navy asset and mission with no real reason. Can’t distinguish command structures and needs across the spectrum. Seems easy but actually ignoring the fact that Marine training and development is for a truly different purpose. Handicap Naval Operations by prioritizing Army needs over misunderstood operational requirements.

Response by LCpl Kevin Tatsak made Apr 10 at 2018 2:03 PM

LCpl Kevin Tatsak — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 14:03:06 -0400

There is a lacking in throat punching these days

Response by PO2 Stephen Breen made Apr 10 at 2018 2:45 PM

PO2 Stephen Breen — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 14:45:33 -0400

Not no, but fuck no. The ethos and traditions of both services would collide like Catholics and Baptists. Sure, both are Christian but they have their peculiarities of worship. I have friends from MARSOC and Fifth Group and while I love them both, combining the two services as a matter of expediency does disservice to both.

Response by Sgt Lou Vincent made Apr 10 at 2018 2:52 PM

Sgt Lou Vincent — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 14:52:51 -0400

No, Marines and Navy are the compatible parts not Marines and Army. Unless the Navy decides to make an MOS for amphibious assault and/ or maritime raids and ship boardings at sea. The Army doesn’t have that capability unless they put soldiers on board Navy ships, which is dumb because Marines are already a department of the Navy. That was our original mission and we play that role today.

This article is stupid.

Semper Fi

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 10 at 2018 2:54 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 14:54:43 -0400

If it has worked for over 200 years why try and change it now! SF

Response by CPL Ray Eanes made Apr 10 at 2018 2:58 PM

CPL Ray Eanes — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 14:58:22 -0400

Response by LCpl Charles Baker made Apr 10 at 2018 3:39 PM

LCpl Charles Baker — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 15:39:19 -0400

Absolutely, God Damn NOT, No Way in Hell, WTF, F***ING NEVER!!!!!! Theretitle already says it---A-R-M-Y [A-Ain't, R-Ready to be M-Marines, Y-Yet!!!!!]

Response by SSG Veryl Dragoo made Apr 10 at 2018 3:51 PM

SSG Veryl Dragoo — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 15:51:39 -0400

I’m old school but these are two entirely different types of combat trained.

Response by Sgt Ted Reed made Apr 10 at 2018 4:40 PM

Sgt Ted Reed — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 16:40:42 -0400

It will never fly, the services have been split for a reason.

Response by 1SG Richard Starkey made Apr 10 at 2018 5:35 PM

1SG Richard Starkey — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 17:35:01 -0400

I will default to LTC Paul Labrador. There would be a severe learning curve for both Amry & Corps. Until the powers that be are ready to address that type of readiness issue, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it "

Response by CPL Sean Wayment made Apr 10 at 2018 5:47 PM

CPL Sean Wayment — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 17:47:24 -0400

I love my Marine brothers and sisters, but no way should they be forced into the Army umbrella! I love the Army the way it is, the Marines love the Corps the way it is...don't screw with a good thing.

Response by LCpl Barrett Mitchell made Apr 10 at 2018 5:57 PM

LCpl Barrett Mitchell — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 17:57:14 -0400

Response by PO1 Daniela James made Apr 10 at 2018 6:10 PM

PO1 Daniela James — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 18:10:57 -0400

No. The Marine Corps is already under the Department of the Navy. Want to consolidate put the Air Force back with the Army.

Response by Cpl Shaun Klutts made Apr 10 at 2018 6:20 PM

Cpl Shaun Klutts — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 18:20:55 -0400

Here is a thought why not have the Army integrate into the Marines. We have higher PFT standards, firing distances, everyone is trained for combat, faster readiness times, and we know both army and navy slang/terminology. I would do a more elaborate post but it's hard to type on the phone.

Response by SSgt Ken Blackwell made Apr 10 at 2018 6:21 PM

SSgt Ken Blackwell — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 18:21:28 -0400

No, total different mind set.

Response by Jennifer Williams made Apr 10 at 2018 6:30 PM

Jennifer Williams — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 18:30:38 -0400

No, I married my husband when he was a Marine. Not that there is anything wrong with the Army, he ended up retiring from the Army National Guard, but being a military wife for 22 years, they were two different entities. I don’t know any other way to express it.
Thank You!

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 10 at 2018 6:52 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 18:52:29 -0400

To be fair the writer of this article the Army should give up it's heavy boats and send them to the Navy. Why does the army have these boats anyway? The Army would need to give up it's air operations to the Air Force clearly that is a duplicate of operations. Portions of the Army Rangers, Green Beret, would go to the Navy Seals or Air Force Pararescue because of operational transportation and duplication.
The Army would have to teach Naval traditions. Teach all of its personnel how to function aboard a ship and how to properly work inside a naval activity. And if the writer of this article actually understood that the United States Marine Corps is actually part of the Department of the Navy as the official seal states.
None of this is PR this is from a person who lived the life of a Marine for many years I have nothing against the other branches we all have a common goal protect the United States of America. Each of the branches and Special Forces have a special niche that they have made for themselves. The Marine Corps is an extremely small group compared to the Army that does many things that the Army cannot do because of its size unless of course we make another Special Forces Group.

Response by SN Julian Teodoro made Apr 10 at 2018 6:53 PM

SN Julian Teodoro — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 18:53:14 -0400

No..it is fine the way it is.

Response by Sgt Trace McCracken made Apr 10 at 2018 7:03 PM

Sgt Trace McCracken — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 19:03:30 -0400

This has been proposed a few times in the past. It has always been rejected for good reasons. The Army has been in favor and have been the ones to bring it up. The Marines have always been righteously indignant at the very suggestion. If it ain’t broke, don’t try to fix it.

Response by Sgt Paul Harris made Apr 10 at 2018 7:10 PM

Sgt Paul Harris — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 19:10:10 -0400

Response by LTC Craig Lenney made Apr 10 at 2018 7:14 PM

LTC Craig Lenney — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 19:14:37 -0400

They have different missions in war

Response by LT Mike McWilliams made Apr 10 at 2018 7:18 PM

LT Mike McWilliams — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 19:18:45 -0400

No. Completely different missions. Respect to both branches.

Response by PFC Christopher Olig made Apr 10 at 2018 8:13 PM

PFC Christopher Olig — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 20:13:48 -0400

This situation would be FUBAR no way.

Response by SPC Adrian Shamma made Apr 10 at 2018 8:30 PM

SPC Adrian Shamma — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 20:30:43 -0400

I do foresee a future similar to why we have seen in most notably the Halo video game. It’s a one force multi fasited war machine. Or something similar to what we see in starship troopers. And I do believe that in the next 20 years we will see this merging of branches.

Response by MAJ James Tate made Apr 10 at 2018 8:32 PM

MAJ James Tate — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 20:32:48 -0400

Consolidation of the USMC and the US ARMY is not a new issue. It was, during my career, being discussed, albeit informally, from my recollection, during the mid-1990s by a least one very influential GO. The politics, the emotional outbursts, the sacrosanct beliefs by military and civilian personnel in the private sector, in our own ranks, and on the hill combined to dissuade further considerations. However, in today’s global commitment and the need to be prepared to conduct MILOPS on several continents at the same time, demands new ways of thinking our global mission and the force structure required to adequately address current and future various requirements. Logistics is a most critical piece of maintaining and deploying successfully. Our military industrial capability is fundamental to our global success. We can’t continue to outsource our war materials and components to foreign governments...mainly those who are potential adversaries. Manpower and sustainment of the force is of the utmost. I see no other way to sustain military superiority than consolidation. Yes, there will be some redundancy in 3 Service branches, but that redundancy can be minimized. There is no reason why Army Aviation can’t take on more of the close air combat support role (e.g. A-10) freeing up the USAF to provide tactical air, strategic air, short-mid-long range misile defensive and offensive operations. I support LTC Labrador’s comments. The savings alone could be used rebuild and modernize our military capability. The biggest deterrent to offensive operations is an unquestionable strong and capable defense!

Response by SSgt James Michael made Apr 10 at 2018 9:06 PM

SSgt James Michael — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 21:06:20 -0400

Analytically there are pros and cons to the idea. The things that could be fixed with a merge could just be comparable to new issues that could arise. I’m also with Ssgt. Luck, I completed my MOS training at an army basic base and the basic training is not the same nor are the standards and as she said, we “Earned” our title. No offense to LTC Labrador but it’s not just a PR thing, it’s a real thing. Marines are extremely proud of the title because from day one we train harder and fight meaner then the other branches. I think having different branches creates friendly competition and it also is good for different branches to have to learn to work with each other. What are we gonna do next to “aliviate” some of those headaches, make government contractors like black water and such join up? Make them go back into the military in order to keep their jobs. Then what, make the CIA join the newly formed Army Marine Corps single service so that they don’t have to try and work together with different functions. That’s just my take. Semper Fi

Response by Sgt Joshua Fortier made Apr 10 at 2018 9:12 PM

Sgt Joshua Fortier — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 21:12:53 -0400

I don’t normally chime in on things like this, but I’m going to say this: The Marine Corps is an amphibious force. We go in, capture the territory-then the Army is supposed to come in and hold the territory. That doesn’t always happen, but there’s more quotes about the excellence of The Marine Corps than there is about any other branch. I’m just saying there’s more “I was going to join The Marines, but...”

Response by MSG Louis Alexander made Apr 10 at 2018 9:31 PM

MSG Louis Alexander — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 21:31:13 -0400

ARMY - Because even Marines need a Hero.

Response by Sgt Todd Eaton made Apr 10 at 2018 9:47 PM

Sgt Todd Eaton — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 21:47:43 -0400

Response by PO1 Glen Cook made Apr 10 at 2018 10:10 PM

PO1 Glen Cook — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 22:10:51 -0400

No there is a distinct difference in mission and outlook.

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 10 at 2018 10:17 PM

GySgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 22:17:50 -0400

One big misconception on the Army and Marine side of the house is a simple fundamental element spelled out in one of many descriptions. That is, the Marines are a FORCE in readiness. Not individuals in readiness, not elites in readiness. We are just that, a FORCE. No matter the creed, color, or religion... enemy plans change and/or are adhered to the notion that "the Marines are going to come". Whether that has any tactical bearing is debatable. However, one cannot deny the inevitable mental game this will play with the enemy. Then take into account, the second they actually see Marines. They must subliminally give up. Can you imagine for a second, the United States Marines come bombarding into the scene and you know it's on! Then you remember...oh no... the United States Army is coming next. By in large, the US Army could topple any other nation brute vs brute, but there's other elements to battle and war (see the Art War by Sun Tzu) (Insert details such as SEALs, Rangers, and MARSOC excluded due to their secrecy and specific missions). Then the enemy has to remember, oh no...i can't escape to the sea, the US Navy is 7 times the size of the rest of the worlds Navys combined. Don't look to the skys either because the 3 largest air forces in the world, in order, are the US Air Force, US Army, and US Marines. Finally I emplore don't change a damn thing! I say this as an American thinking to himself, "don't fix it if it ain't broken!" God bless you, Semper Fidelis, we all play our part... the tip of the spear had to be one of us. Read Thomas Jefferson and the Tripoli pirates, Killing the Rising Sun, and finally/most importantly, the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Gospel is the good news that supplants the sovereignty of importance invested in these debatable comments. But remember, "if the Army and the Navy ever look on Heaven's scene, they will see the streets are guarded by United States Marines!"

Response by SGM Byron Reed made Apr 10 at 2018 10:47 PM

SGM Byron Reed — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 22:47:56 -0400

I agree with LTC Labrador

Response by MSgt Michael Ciarkowski made Apr 10 at 2018 11:01 PM

MSgt Michael Ciarkowski — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 23:01:01 -0400

Hell No!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 10 at 2018 11:10 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 23:10:33 -0400

I was first a sailor and then a Matine and now a Soldier, I can tell you logically and logisticly we are very different and with different missions. Is one better than the other, BY FAR, the ARMY is by far the better branch but the marines do more with far less. Is that a testament to the USMC, not really, just an inbreeding of will and brainwashing.

Let me explain, the Marines have a bleed over mission from Navy and shared mission with the ARMY. What that means is that they are owned by navy forces and share a super small piece of the battlefield with the ARMY. That being said, they have to always prove themselves to bigger brother (ARMY) all the time and show they can be just as lethal. When I w as in the marines I was told that marines were the equivalent of that of ARMY Rangers. I saw that was not at all the case in Airborne school when marines would fail constantly because of PT tests and being idiots(brainwashed to think they were superior). I had them seen in follow on schools the marines would have the highest wash out rate of all the branches except the Air Force(I really don’t need to explain that) but all I was taught....harder, faster, better and stronger?? Is it that physiology is the same for all Americans and we were just dooped?? Of course you simple minded amigos, marines aren’t tougher, we were fooled for the mission. We believed the hype to accomplish the mission without questioning orders.

My father always said there is no replacement for displacement. Meaning that the larger platform you start with will only get larger but if you start with a smaller block engine it can only get so big. Meaning that the army is larger than all other branches combined. So we can only get larger with modifications and improvements while other branches are getting 30 year old equipment to use everyday.

We would except the other branches but to say that they are superior and better(kinda like giants to small people, besides bible stories), is just far fetched and unrealistic. I appreciate my brethren but it like comparing apples to miniature cherries with a size complex.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 10 at 2018 11:19 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 23:19:47 -0400

HONESTLY!?!? We don’t NEED a marine corps at all. The navy needs you and the emabassies kinda need you, the president needs an umbrella once in awhile but the more necessary military members are THE US ARMY!! Btw I was a Marine, it’s not all that. I went to all the Army schools and the Marines said we were better than rangers and airborne infantry.... it was all hogwash!! I love that the smallest branch, even behind the coast guard, can think they are mighty. ITS JUST SOOOO CUTE!!!

Response by Cpl David Czapla made Apr 11 at 2018 12:09 AM

Cpl David Czapla — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 00:09:05 -0400

The missions they are geared for are totally different. If consolidated you lose cohesiveness.

Response by PO1 Scott Roberts made Apr 11 at 2018 12:21 AM

PO1 Scott Roberts — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 00:21:35 -0400

Operationally, yes the Marine Corp could absorb the army, and do away with the army.....make them all Marines.

Personally, the Marines are a ground force of the Navy. If I remember correctly the commandant of the Marine corps answers to the secnav, making them a part of the Navy.....sorry jar heads

Response by CPL Richard Richardson made Apr 11 at 2018 12:24 AM

CPL Richard Richardson — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 00:24:52 -0400

Leave it the way it's.

Response by SGT Michael May made Apr 11 at 2018 12:37 AM

SGT Michael May — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 00:37:14 -0400

As long as every soldier is able to meet standards i think we should do away with other branches and all troops must be Marines! Some will disagree. But thats ok!

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 11 at 2018 12:53 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 00:53:28 -0400

In the end it’s one team one fight.
In all the different branches, how many have the same MOS’s? Streamline the process...

Response by SrA Jeffrey Smith made Apr 11 at 2018 1:35 AM

SrA Jeffrey Smith — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 01:35:27 -0400

No!

Response by SrA Jeffrey Smith made Apr 11 at 2018 1:57 AM

SrA Jeffrey Smith — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 01:57:15 -0400

No!

Response by PO3 Chuck Kelley made Apr 11 at 2018 6:21 AM

PO3 Chuck Kelley — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 06:21:25 -0400

I think each branch should remain separate. The Coast Guard operates under the control of the Navy during war. If the other branches unite during a war but remain separate entities if not in a war, then it should remain so.

Response by PO3 Jim McNeil made Apr 11 at 2018 6:47 AM

PO3 Jim McNeil — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 06:47:06 -0400

The Marines have a long and glorious history as a unique fighting unit that works with the Navy to ensure that we are safe here Semper Fi Marines

Response by PO2 Kevin Powell made Apr 11 at 2018 7:50 AM

PO2 Kevin Powell — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 07:50:41 -0400

No, all of the different branches hold traditions and customs that make us all unique. This is what makes us the spear that we are. They may preform similar platforms but its the different history’s that create the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines.

Response by PO1 George Chambers made Apr 11 at 2018 7:57 AM

PO1 George Chambers — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 07:57:18 -0400

Seeing as how The Corps is a branch of the Navy, you might want to consider talking to the CNO about that Merger. How's the Army supposed to get the Marines to the places they need to get to. Do they have troop transport ships. Do they pay the Navy as a taxi service. Marines are the first in and the last out. That will do for now...Discuss

Response by PO3 Eddie Roberts made Apr 11 at 2018 8:07 AM

PO3 Eddie Roberts — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 08:07:41 -0400

After leaving the navy I’ve kept up and in touch with shipmates, both navy and marines, over the years. I briefly worked with USAA getting me reintegrated with the military culture. In my opinion the problem with this integration is simple. All marines are riflemen first. They all almost have dual capabilities and roles. The army however has become over specialized. A dank squad. Each member is responsible for a certain thing and only that thing. No one else is qualified or willing to do that job. This over specialization makes it hard for me to believe that the marines, which are all hands on, would be able to integrate into any such role. Sure, there are specialization in every branch. But historically the Corps has always had to fight for funding, equipment, etc.. and has developed a policy of everyone making do and helping out.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 11 at 2018 8:33 AM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 08:33:44 -0400

No way.... different missions with different modes of operation. My husband is a Marine, he would have a stroke at the suggestion. #bulgingforeheadvein #strokeout

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 11 at 2018 8:38 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 08:38:43 -0400

Give them back to the navy, but the Army and national guard already have a lot of marines that saw the light. Marines are cool, but they are not ranger or green berets cool. 85% of marines do not re-enlist after their first enlistment, so what’s up with that. That percentage comes from recruiting command, that is recruiting E-7s to recruit exiting marines to the guard and reserves.

Response by David Gill made Apr 11 at 2018 8:51 AM

David Gill — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 08:51:41 -0400

Honestly I'm not horribly against it but I don't think they would consolidate or go together very well especially the cross training

Response by SGT Patrick Carder made Apr 11 at 2018 9:21 AM

SGT Patrick Carder — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 09:21:56 -0400

Terrible should never be considered

Response by Amn Michael Lesnick made Apr 11 at 2018 9:29 AM

Amn Michael Lesnick — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 09:29:20 -0400

They should stay separate. Each Branch has their own functions. They get combined as needed via Joint Ops Task Forces.

Response by SPC Rodney Merrell made Apr 11 at 2018 9:46 AM

SPC Rodney Merrell — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 09:46:57 -0400

Former Army Combat Medic. No, Marines are trained for all kinds of Infantry training. Army not as much. Should stay separate.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 11 at 2018 10:07 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 10:07:08 -0400

I was in the army for 29yrs, and i known a lot Marines in those years. And I have seen the decline in the army recruits coming out of boot in the past 10 years. A lot of them are a bunch of whining cry babies that can't even pass a PT test at their first Duty station. The Quick Test how many marines do you see out of shape versus how many army?

Response by Sgt Sidney Spencer Sr made Apr 11 at 2018 10:08 AM

Sgt Sidney Spencer Sr — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 10:08:58 -0400

No! No! No! We earned the right to be called Marine. Our Honor is OURS. The idea of grouping us with them is appalling.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 11 at 2018 10:09 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 10:09:20 -0400

NO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We already have joint operational capibilities whenever necessary. Our respective roles are now completely different. Marines are like a very large Ranger force. The sieze a toehold on enemy territory and the Army comes in to exploit it. They also are our primary force projection branch. They can go into another nation and it does not really rise to the level of war. If the Army goes in it is real war.
WE are the attrition force and we are organized to sustain high losses. The USMC is small and specialized and they should not be committed to operations that will lead to high casualties other than their primary mission. They are way too valuable in their primary role

Response by CN William Horton made Apr 11 at 2018 10:39 AM

CN William Horton — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 10:39:53 -0400

No, keep our arm services separate, each have their own specialities.

Response by SSgt Terry McKeag made Apr 11 at 2018 10:47 AM

SSgt Terry McKeag — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 10:47:42 -0400

You can't combine the rest with the best. Let the soldiers be all they can be. There is a reason we are The few and the proud.

Response by Cpl Wade Polly made Apr 11 at 2018 11:24 AM

Cpl Wade Polly — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 11:24:12 -0400

I'm sorry, but this is rediculous. Marines are not Soldiers, and Soldiers are not Marines.

Response by Sgt Kevin Tupper made Apr 11 at 2018 11:28 AM

Sgt Kevin Tupper — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 11:28:41 -0400

Absolutely NOT

Response by PO2 Anthony Jones made Apr 11 at 2018 11:56 AM

PO2 Anthony Jones — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 11:56:08 -0400

different functions and duties.

Response by PO3 Leo Pompeo made Apr 11 at 2018 12:01 PM

PO3 Leo Pompeo — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 12:01:51 -0400

Response by PO2 Leo Watko made Apr 11 at 2018 12:47 PM

PO2 Leo Watko — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 12:47:33 -0400

No. Marines are the original authorized expeditionary force. An important first response capability.

Response by SGT Tamara Nagle Meints made Apr 11 at 2018 1:14 PM

SGT Tamara Nagle Meints — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 13:14:14 -0400

I have the utmost respect for the Marines and I recognize them as the top of the military. As an Army Veteran, I could see a consolidation but it would not be easy.

Response by COL Bob McBride made Apr 11 at 2018 1:24 PM

COL Bob McBride — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 13:24:56 -0400

No way! Each Service has its own history, traditions, and culture. The last is most significant of the three. Each Service is a truly unique culture, and each is highly important to our country, as presently constituted.

Response by SPC Ryan Bogarin made Apr 11 at 2018 1:58 PM

SPC Ryan Bogarin — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 13:58:33 -0400

Combining 0311 and 11B is the only sensible option with this suggestion. All others are nonsense.

Response by GySgt Vince Shambaugh made Apr 11 at 2018 3:03 PM

GySgt Vince Shambaugh — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 15:03:24 -0400

Ludicrous. Tradition, pride, es spirit de corps, and 250 years of wars made our branches. They need to left the hell alone. If it aint broke, don't fix it.

Response by LCpl Chuck Wagner made Apr 11 at 2018 3:07 PM

LCpl Chuck Wagner — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 15:07:30 -0400

This 0311 says no. The Army is great at what they do, but being on a west PAC is not in there skill set. The Marine are the force in readiness. Waiting to be unleaded from the chain at a moment notice. The Army just does not deploy as quick.

Response by Sgt Jerimiah Black made Apr 11 at 2018 3:16 PM

Sgt Jerimiah Black — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 15:16:00 -0400

I, as a marine, can see why the DoD would consider this. With that being stated, Marine Corps training, starting early in boot camp, is much different than Army training. What I think should really happen is the merger of the Amh into the USMC, to create a much more effective unit that doesn't base the quality of it's missions on number of men but moreso on quality and productivity of men (and woman; this is a figure of speech). As LTC Labrador said above as well, there are components of the USMC, extremely important components, that the Army does not; including amphibious assault capabilities, survival tactics, and even overall physical health quals. There are components of the Army that we don't have that could definitely strengthen our objectives, but t tell the Marine Corps to join the Army is a blatent show of how little people understand of the Marine Corps, and why exactly we are as effective as we are. Many retired Marines join the Army as instructors or stay in their specialty because they know it isn't as taxing to do so, and they will have a smoother tranistion into the civilian sector. The numbers of Army that join the Marine Corps after time served in their branch is extremely low, and I believe this speaks volumes. Why take a more effective branch and join it with a less effective branch (no disrespect meant)? Does it not make more sense to take the less effective branch and combine it with the more effective branch? If that does happen, an evaluation in accordance with USMC standards should be applied to all those who were Army, to gauge their readiness in the field, the combat stage, and expectations when it applies to etiquette.

Response by CPT Stephen Glotzbach made Apr 11 at 2018 3:50 PM

CPT Stephen Glotzbach — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 15:50:21 -0400

I am an inactive U.S. Army and Kansas Army National Guard officer. I am not retired.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 11 at 2018 4:36 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 16:36:45 -0400

As a veteran that served in both branches I know first hand that there would be some benefits if both were to consolidate. However, rather than having to deal with the massive cultural clashs that would definitely strain the overall mission of both branches, I believe it would be more beneficial to keep things the way they currently are while continuing to improve joint operations. In other words, stop trying to fix what's not broken.

Response by SSgt Donnie Allen made Apr 11 at 2018 4:44 PM

SSgt Donnie Allen — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 16:44:34 -0400

I’m not on board with that at all. I was Air Force - but in a very specialized career field. I’ve operated with both Army and Marines. I don’t know anyone I served with ... Army or USMC, who would call this a good plan. Both have different missions and objectives ... it’s as dumb as all the stupid uniform changes.

Response by GySgt Gary Insley made Apr 11 at 2018 4:59 PM

GySgt Gary Insley — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 16:59:30 -0400

The Marine corps can also be mobilized by the president. It does not take a act of congress to move them. In short the marine corps is not going anywhere. They are there for a specific reason.

Response by CDR Charlie Patterson made Apr 11 at 2018 5:04 PM

CDR Charlie Patterson — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 17:04:32 -0400

For those of us that have spent considerable time in the employ of the federal government it comes as no surprise to hear that the greatest roadblocks to progress stem from bureaucracy. The “tooth to tale” ratio is a key metric for determining the effectiveness of a combat oriented unit. Obviously the more organizations, the more Admin departments, and the greater the “tale” as opposed to the “teeth.” Our weakness was exposed in Granada, Panama, the first gulf war, on 9-11... and we still struggle today with the lack of optimum communication and duplication of effort between agencies, and the inefficiencies they bring.
The purpose of the armed forces is to kill the enemy and blow up his stuff. Or in polite parlance, to reduce or eliminate an opposing force’s capacity to make war. The more streamlined our forces, the more effective we will be at meeting that mandate.
So do I believe there should be consolidation of certain assets? Absolutely. The Marine Corps should be folded into the Army and the Air Force should be split between the Army and Navy. And we should create a Space Force which will handle “space things” including ICBM’s. One Land based Force with air assets, one Sea based Force with air assets, and one Space Force.
Will it ever happen? Of course not...

Response by SSgt Robert Jarvis made Apr 11 at 2018 5:06 PM

SSgt Robert Jarvis — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 17:06:39 -0400

What about consolidation of USMC and USN air wings. Or as sepetated as they make themselves now assign ALL pilots to USAF they'd just. Specialize.

Response by CPT Michael Topalian made Apr 11 at 2018 6:34 PM

CPT Michael Topalian — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 18:34:51 -0400

Practically, it makes sense. You can’t remove tradition and honor from the equation. Leave them separate

Response by LCpl Shawn Cass made Apr 11 at 2018 6:48 PM

LCpl Shawn Cass — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 18:48:26 -0400

No. Each has their own tradition history and above all honor. No offense but leave my beloved corps alone. No combination

Response by LCpl Adam Scott made Apr 11 at 2018 7:04 PM

LCpl Adam Scott — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 19:04:05 -0400

No, we specialize in many types of warfare, but we do not occupy a theater for longer than is needed to kill there enemy. The merger would water down the ranks ability to conduct business as usual on the Corps side of the house. It's an all around bad idea.

Response by PFC Jeremy Clough made Apr 11 at 2018 7:24 PM

PFC Jeremy Clough — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 19:24:14 -0400

Each branch of the U.S. military has earned their own section. Each branch specializes in different areas despite a lot of the MOSs cross from one to the other. Consolidating the branches would cause a thousand tons more problems than it would solve.

Response by A1C Eric Maresch made Apr 11 at 2018 7:42 PM

A1C Eric Maresch — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 19:42:51 -0400

No . should Armed sevice commitee be run by the Joint Chiefs of staff

Response by SMSgt Mike Jones made Apr 11 at 2018 7:56 PM

SMSgt Mike Jones — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 19:56:09 -0400

No, as to the capabilities, yes they are similar however, what is the mission of the two? I believe there is better unit focus on separate capabilities, as the Marines are primarily a seaborne infantry strike force with internal capability but, dependent on the Navy to some extent versus the Army with a more broad and multifunctional Land/Air capability with a much larger and complex supply/support system and dependent on the Air Force and Navy. They fight differently, they have a different leadership culture, and sorry tradition of mission. Even looking back at WWII and how Pacific and Atlantic theaters were manage there seems a different mission focus... my opinion having worked with both branches while active duty... I get the objective but, think you would sacrifice capability combining... priorities being priorities in the upper echelons... I think we have it right now with the capability and mission focus of the Army, the Air Force, the Navy and The Marines... separate entities and focus, same team...

Response by PFC Joseph Burkhart made Apr 11 at 2018 7:59 PM

PFC Joseph Burkhart — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 19:59:36 -0400

No Marines belong with the Navy it has been that since the country was founded.

Response by SFC James Anderson made Apr 11 at 2018 8:23 PM

SFC James Anderson — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 20:23:02 -0400

No, can't see it working very well, too much difference in mental attitude towards combat!!

Response by LTJG Randall Newton made Apr 11 at 2018 8:35 PM

LTJG Randall Newton — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 20:35:11 -0400

Just analyze the operations in Granada. USMC held 90% of the Island 72 hours in, those “elite” Army units were still working on the airport. Ditch the Army, grow the Corp.

Response by PFC Brenda Tatum Becker made Apr 11 at 2018 8:56 PM

PFC Brenda Tatum Becker — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 20:56:50 -0400

To many jarheads as is. Air Force and Army are Militay History. Not Jar heads!

Response by Sgt Craig Bartley made Apr 11 at 2018 8:57 PM

Sgt Craig Bartley — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 20:57:56 -0400

Not even worth discussing.

Response by SP5 Ray McLeod made Apr 11 at 2018 9:02 PM

SP5 Ray McLeod — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 21:02:56 -0400

If it ain't broke don't fix it! The Army is a very
diverse organization which is exceedingly
flexible. Tha Marines are smaller and highly
focused in their training for special operations.
The training purposes and motivation are not
similar to the Army.
Each service has a unique purpose and has
proven to be exceedingly successful.

Response by LCpl Michael Horvath made Apr 11 at 2018 9:03 PM

LCpl Michael Horvath — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 21:03:44 -0400

Only if the Army can pass a Marine Corps PFT after enduring 12 weeks of training!!!

Response by Sgt Mark Murphy made Apr 11 at 2018 9:04 PM

Sgt Mark Murphy — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 21:04:26 -0400

I thank all members of the Military for their service and sacrifice . The Marines and Army are top branches when it comes to ground pounding ,but there are a few distinct differences.

The Marines are an initial shock force , yes with amphibious capabilities which we are known for n but also for our deep history of fierce fighting abilities . The Marine Corps is not meant to be a long occupying force , That's where the Army comes in .

This is their bread and butter. We do both offer out versions of special forces and one would day theirs is better than the other , but when you get down to it n Marines are just a different breed.

Could both the Marines and Army get along , sure . Would we have eachoyhers back in a fight, absolutely . But we are separate entities for a reason, both brining unique ways of accomplishing the mission.

I have many family members in the Army and I have the utmost respect for them as any military member, but at the same time there are vast differences between us .

I work with alit of

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 11 at 2018 9:15 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 21:15:46 -0400

I think that all the branches need to consolidate their military intelligence into a joint community. Service members should also drop packets for it just as you do for Warrant Officer.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 11 at 2018 10:01 PM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 22:01:38 -0400

Yes

Response by Sgt Roy Thomas made Apr 11 at 2018 10:08 PM

Sgt Roy Thomas — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 22:08:34 -0400

This is Corporal Thomas from USMC and I have yet to see the same fight n gett some attitude from my army counterparts. There's a reason why we're referred to as the presidents 911 team to be called. We're simply better at adapting and overcoming on the fly. It's that simple to me. Just this Marines opinion

Response by SrA Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 11 at 2018 10:18 PM

SrA Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 22:18:36 -0400

I'd say no. Keep the branches separate but still have them work together. At least when I was at the 353d SOG, the Group CC (Col) had to answer to an AF General and a Navy Admiral. At the time I was there the Admiral was Eric T. Olsen.

Response by MAJ Bill Reinhardt made Apr 11 at 2018 10:35 PM

MAJ Bill Reinhardt — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 22:35:50 -0400

No! They serve different purposes and have their own respective traditions! 110% oppose this idea!

Response by Lt Col George Roll made Apr 11 at 2018 10:37 PM

Lt Col George Roll — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 22:37:44 -0400

The USMC is the premary amphibious landing force. Despite recient conflicts which have been mostly land ops, the Marines have unique specialest capabilities, they work with and are integrated with the NAVY amphibious capabilitys. They have organic air and artillery and pro ide detachments on capitol ships. None of this is the bread and butter mission of the ARMY.
The ARMY provides the major ground forces Divisions, Corps large scale operations capabilities. While the ARMY did have di isions do amphib landings in WWII that is not where their capabities lie.
The USAF is charged with providing Air Dominance and supporting the ground forces. The centeral control of air rather than distributing it to Divisions or Corps insures it provides that dominance. As far as being "combat oriented", dont say that to USAF Combat Controllers or NAVY SEALS. We spend more than 2 years in the pipe line gaining "combat skills" and we provide the interface that seamlessly interfaces the Air Sea and Land capabilities 250 years of working things out should not recklessly be thrown out.
George N Roll Ltc. (Ret) USAF (CCT, TACP JSOC /JCU)

Response by MSG Robert Marietta made Apr 11 at 2018 11:10 PM

MSG Robert Marietta — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 23:10:35 -0400

No! Maybe the Navy and Marines together and bring back the Army Air Corps. Might work.

Response by LCpl Steve Bartoe made Apr 11 at 2018 11:30 PM

LCpl Steve Bartoe — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 23:30:14 -0400

what an insult

Response by SGT Theodore Tressler made Apr 11 at 2018 11:36 PM

SGT Theodore Tressler — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 23:36:10 -0400

1. The Marines are not a branch of the military. It is a corps and is already a component of the Dept of the Navy. They’re essentially the “go knock on their door” part of the Navy.

This question is akin to moving Army Aviation (rotor wings) to the USAF. It could be done, but why?

The whole branch competition “thing” is frankly silly. Everyone in uniform serves under the same flag, supporting, protecting and defending the constitution of the US.

Combine the Marines with the Army? Well, it might make logistical and administrative sense, but in practice it doesn’t seem realistic or necessary.

Response by LCpl Tommy Preston made Apr 11 at 2018 11:39 PM

LCpl Tommy Preston — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 23:39:10 -0400

Unrealistic, it's just to stir the shit pot. If soldiers wanted to be Marines they would've joined and the other way around. To many skill sets to go into Marines become one with. Let's go with one. Physical presence, what?? That's because I I know when we walk in the room, it's our room. Two, don't matter if you're a cook baker candle stick maker, you're a Marine first. Look that up so you can get locked on.

Response by Sgt Walter Cabrera made Apr 12 at 2018 12:17 AM

Sgt Walter Cabrera — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 00:17:21 -0400

No, Marines have their traditions and history, the Army has theirs.

Response by SSgt John McKendry made Apr 12 at 2018 12:23 AM

SSgt John McKendry — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 00:23:26 -0400

The Army and the USAF already have formed "joint bases", it's not too far of a stretch to combine services. Together but separate just like before 1947.

Response by AA Robert Cree made Apr 12 at 2018 12:42 AM

AA Robert Cree — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 00:42:11 -0400

No, they are already semi consolidated with the US NAVY and that's enough

Response by SN Jay Perry made Apr 12 at 2018 1:33 AM

SN Jay Perry — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 01:33:16 -0400

While there is overlap in missions and personnel requirements, the traditions, and support of each individual service is DIFFERENT. Think that 200+ years of tradition is there for a reason...and combined staffs/missions/and commands aside they are there for a reason. The Army with their very limited fixed wing support, won't be able to administer (or support) the Air Force any more than the Air Force could administer (or support) the horse born cavalry. The Marines, with their usual hind tit method of funding, MIGHT be able to benefit from the Navy system (like NEW equipment), but neither the USN or the USMC would be happy with ANY solution you come up with.

Response by PO1 Cliff Zeigler made Apr 12 at 2018 2:22 AM

PO1 Cliff Zeigler — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 02:22:11 -0400

Navy and USMC

Response by LCpl Jonathan Diaz made Apr 12 at 2018 2:49 AM

LCpl Jonathan Diaz — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 02:49:46 -0400

Never different missions

Response by CPO Patrick Kusterman made Apr 12 at 2018 3:47 AM

CPO Patrick Kusterman — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 03:47:56 -0400

They are not the same the Marines are more a quick strike force the Army is an occupation force for longer term situations. They both have their specialties. Its just like the Navy when they keep attempting to lump everyone into fewer ratings because their jobs appear similar they waste all this time and money and then they reverse it because its realized that the job isnt getting done. Dont mess with what isnt broken

Response by LCpl Eli Pocharski made Apr 12 at 2018 4:42 AM

LCpl Eli Pocharski — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 04:42:42 -0400

Training, missions, deployment times are different. It's apples and oranges.

Response by PO1 Lee Staley made Apr 12 at 2018 5:40 AM

PO1 Lee Staley — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 05:40:37 -0400

Yes they do the same jobs .

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 12 at 2018 5:40 AM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 05:40:53 -0400

Nope. My father was World War II U. S. Army and I was in the Marine Corps Reserve for 6 years. The Army and the Marine Corps are different with different assignments in warfare.

Response by PO1 Lee Staley made Apr 12 at 2018 5:43 AM

PO1 Lee Staley — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 05:43:36 -0400

Ok ,why not they do some of the same jobs, plus they could relieve more units comving together.

Response by MSgt Gary Sargent made Apr 12 at 2018 6:44 AM

MSgt Gary Sargent — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 06:44:16 -0400

No no no...that would be a huge mistake. Leave well enough alone.

Response by PO3 Steven Kuchenbrod made Apr 12 at 2018 8:28 AM

PO3 Steven Kuchenbrod — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 08:28:17 -0400

I theory it may sound like a good idea, but I just don't know how it would work unless you stop recruiting for the Army and Marines and all new recruits are trained in the "Whatever". It would be really hard to see the Marines lose their identity, I have total respect for them!

Response by SSgt Eric Evans made Apr 12 at 2018 8:36 AM

SSgt Eric Evans — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 08:36:28 -0400

I served 8 in the Corps and 12 in the Army.... the only reason consolidation is even being considered is because they can been fighting side by side in nonconventional assymmetric warfare for the last 17 years. The conventional duties for each branch are why they have never been consolidated, Iraq and AFG have caused us to forget that other countries we may have to fight someday have conventional militaries

Response by SPC Shawn Nalley made Apr 12 at 2018 8:55 AM

SPC Shawn Nalley — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 08:55:23 -0400

If it ain't broke then don't fix it..... Let well enough alone... Both branches serve and have a purpose and they both do it to the highest standards that's what's makes us the best military in the world..(mic drop)

Response by GySgt Kenneth Martin made Apr 12 at 2018 9:11 AM

GySgt Kenneth Martin — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 09:11:00 -0400

I'm a retired Marine and we shouldn't ever be considered to consolidate with any other service due to our rich history. The army also has a rich history in country.

Response by SGT Richard Huffman made Apr 12 at 2018 9:48 AM

SGT Richard Huffman — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 09:48:39 -0400

They have different missions so no

Response by SGT Andre Daigle made Apr 12 at 2018 10:19 AM

SGT Andre Daigle — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 10:19:25 -0400

Response by PFC Maki Stambolian made Apr 12 at 2018 10:25 AM

PFC Maki Stambolian — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 10:25:44 -0400

Negative! USMC FOREVER

Response by SA William Antico made Apr 12 at 2018 12:10 PM

SA William Antico — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 12:10:31 -0400

No. The Marines are part of the Navy and they need to stay that way.

Response by SFC Bruce Reece made Apr 12 at 2018 12:13 PM

SFC Bruce Reece — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 12:13:08 -0400

No I do not feel the Army and Marines should consolidate. There is a need for both branches, they would not have been created if not needed. They are much more manageable this way as well. Yes they are somewhat similar but each branch has their own speciality.

Response by PO2 Michael Spizzirri made Apr 12 at 2018 12:23 PM

PO2 Michael Spizzirri — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 12:23:01 -0400

No. The Marines are already “consolidated” with the Navy. It has worked extremely well, for a very long time. Leave it alone.

Response by SPC Billy Norris made Apr 12 at 2018 12:32 PM

SPC Billy Norris — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 12:32:30 -0400

Why ?

Response by SPC Billy Norris made Apr 12 at 2018 12:39 PM

SPC Billy Norris — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 12:39:51 -0400

Not an insult fought alongside marines in Vietnam
Saying it is an insult is an insult jarhead . Our cold dead bodies are covered with same flag . We leave blood bones & flesh on foreign soil the same way . Army does not want to be part of marines but I would never say it's an insult or we not as proud as marines . Get real.

Response by LtCol John Sargent made Apr 12 at 2018 1:02 PM

LtCol John Sargent — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 13:02:54 -0400

Never.

Response by SGT Michael Simshauser made Apr 12 at 2018 2:37 PM

SGT Michael Simshauser — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 14:37:56 -0400

The only thing I would like to see is the Marines getting proper funding. Both branches serve their respective purposes and both fight hard. Both deserve to be equipped with the best gear possible.

Response by Sgt Daniel Cook made Apr 12 at 2018 3:07 PM

Sgt Daniel Cook — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 15:07:47 -0400

No, stood on yellow footprints and ended with earning my Eagle, Globe,and Anchor. Pride to this day.

Response by CMDCM John Driver made Apr 12 at 2018 4:07 PM

CMDCM John Driver — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 16:07:54 -0400

Oh He'll No

Response by CMSgt William Powell made Apr 12 at 2018 5:00 PM

CMSgt William Powell — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 17:00:00 -0400

I have said for more than 30 years that with the advent of more and more joint operations that consolidation is a way to trim some of the overhead we have across the services. From my point of view the Army and the USAF should be reconsilidated, especially since the Army really has more aircraft than the USAF. However, parts of the Army that are direct groun combat related should be consolidate into the Marines. But I would also suggest that the Marines have the amphibious posture that they should be integrated into the Navy. Jut think how many senior officer positions could be eliminated, therefore significant savings for th DOD. Just some wayward thoughts from a old crusty CMSgt.

Response by Capt Michael Mcginley made Apr 12 at 2018 5:00 PM

Capt Michael Mcginley — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 17:00:03 -0400

That will never happen. Semper Fi

Response by SFC James Welch made Apr 12 at 2018 5:13 PM

SFC James Welch — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 17:13:40 -0400

We were one once. I suppose we could be again but, why? Some idiot Congressmen’s whim? Leave things alone you stupid ass liberals!

Response by Cpl Valentin Lecuona made Apr 12 at 2018 5:19 PM

Cpl Valentin Lecuona — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 17:19:36 -0400

We each have different missions, different standards, different nomenclature, different traditions to me with all due respect to Rangers, Green Berets and actual Airborne soldiers it's an insult and if those units I named want to join the Corps then its a possibility and the rest of Army can join National Guard units. I work with huge number of Army veterans and since I not supposed to bad mouth them I will only say that just discussing this is a waste of time.

Response by SFC James Welch made Apr 12 at 2018 5:21 PM

SFC James Welch — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 17:21:40 -0400

The Marines are the Combat Infantry of the Navy. They protect the ships and Navy Personnel. They’ve done this since the beginning of the Revolutionary War. It’s not broke, don’t try to fix it!

Response by Cpl B R made Apr 12 at 2018 5:28 PM

Cpl B R — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 17:28:06 -0400

HE'LL NO!!

Response by SPC David Graves made Apr 12 at 2018 5:50 PM

SPC David Graves — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 17:50:45 -0400

course not marines are supposed to be rapid deployment where as the army is there to stay

Response by LtCol Bill Harkins made Apr 12 at 2018 6:20 PM

LtCol Bill Harkins — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 18:20:41 -0400

Response by Sgt Matthew Goodwin made Apr 12 at 2018 6:54 PM

Sgt Matthew Goodwin — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 18:54:25 -0400

That would be just stupid, Marines are held to different standards! No, that is all, carry on!

Response by Sgt Robert Schwindler made Apr 12 at 2018 6:55 PM

Sgt Robert Schwindler — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 18:55:59 -0400

Keep all branches of the military as they are , there may be arguments as to who is better than the other,but the corps is the best,hands down .

Response by LTC Steven Mcfeeters made Apr 12 at 2018 7:08 PM

LTC Steven Mcfeeters — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 19:08:21 -0400

No, different capabilities. Sure they overlap, but we are the best tankers because Marines do not understand how to use tanks; and we need Marines in MAGTAFS becausu it would take months to train Army guys how to do that. Whose brilliant idea was it that we do not need both?

Response by Sgt Robert Riddle made Apr 12 at 2018 7:10 PM

Sgt Robert Riddle — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 19:10:31 -0400

Absolutely without a doubt no way in hell!

Response by PO3 Barbara Bower made Apr 12 at 2018 7:23 PM

PO3 Barbara Bower — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 19:23:29 -0400

Hell no! Marines are Marines sms went they say, we make Marines. Army are just another branch of service just like Navy, Coast Guard and Air Force. Keep them separate.

Response by LCpl Gordon Wilkins made Apr 12 at 2018 7:54 PM

LCpl Gordon Wilkins — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 19:54:21 -0400

No!

Response by AA Tammy Dean made Apr 12 at 2018 8:20 PM

AA Tammy Dean — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 20:20:17 -0400

No keep our branches a separate.....

Response by Cpl Lee AlwaysForward made Apr 12 at 2018 8:40 PM

Cpl Lee AlwaysForward — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 20:40:07 -0400

Simple , A Marine is always a Marine. PRIDE HONOR COURAGE well beyond others.

Response by LCpl Whalen J made Apr 12 at 2018 10:09 PM

LCpl Whalen J — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 22:09:50 -0400

Never... throughout hostory The United States Maine Corps has been held to a standard above all others. Not everyone has what it takes to become a Marine or even be considered for a slot to Bootcamp. Its not about numbers for those who make the cut. Its The Few, The Proud for a reason

Response by SGT Dan Douglass made Apr 12 at 2018 10:44 PM

SGT Dan Douglass — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 22:44:01 -0400

Having been in the 101st, I understand pride in your unit. I don't think the Marines or the Army would ever get past the emotional attachment for their branch of the service. It may make financial sense but I don't think you could get it work.

Response by LCpl Joe Puchek made Apr 12 at 2018 10:45 PM

LCpl Joe Puchek — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 22:45:55 -0400

The Corp and Army remain separate.

Response by SGT Dan Douglass made Apr 12 at 2018 10:46 PM

SGT Dan Douglass — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 22:46:17 -0400

Also, it was too much fun beating the jarheads at war games.

Response by SGT Kenneth Bardwell made Apr 12 at 2018 11:34 PM

SGT Kenneth Bardwell — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 23:34:00 -0400

No.period no discussion

Response by Cpl Ron Couche made Apr 13 at 2018 12:23 AM

Cpl Ron Couche — Fri, 13 Apr 2018 00:23:19 -0400

I was the scribe in boot camp. At one time or another, there were 108 guys in our platoon. At graduation, there were 39 of us that received the EGA. The Marine Corps is an elite group with more stringent requirements and a different mission from the army. What would be accomplished by combining the two? There would still be a Department of the Navy, so we're not eliminating a service branch. If it ain't broke .....

Response by Cpl Billy Grosso made Apr 13 at 2018 4:36 AM

Cpl Billy Grosso — Fri, 13 Apr 2018 04:36:24 -0400

If anything is going to be consolidated, they should consolidate every branch into the marine corps.

Response by PO2 Bill Ries made Apr 13 at 2018 7:40 AM

PO2 Bill Ries — Fri, 13 Apr 2018 07:40:24 -0400

The Marine Corp is traditionally trained for the specialities of shipboard security and amphibious assault. These are important specialties. All emotional shit aside, the Marines and the Navy are still a better for than the Army. No disrespect to our dry land brothers but the Marines would not benefit, in my opinion, from that consolidation. If "combat orientation" was the most important aspect, why are the SEALS one of the world's greatest combat forces? Marine tradition, should be preserved. The air Force grew out of the army. It was never nessesarily a good fit.

Response by Sgt Alfredo Nieves made Apr 13 at 2018 7:59 AM

Sgt Alfredo Nieves — Fri, 13 Apr 2018 07:59:37 -0400

I am totally against it. The USMC not only has a great tradition but is by far the world's best fighting force, bar none

Response by SFC George “Bones” Small made Apr 13 at 2018 9:03 AM

SFC George “Bones” Small — Fri, 13 Apr 2018 09:03:05 -0400

The Army already has shared commands with the Air Force, so I think a merger of the two would be more possible than anything else. The Marines has a dedicated mission other than combat, guarding the U.S. Embassies and protecting our Navy vessels. I don't believe a merger between the two would be advantageous in any way.

Response by LCpl Shawn Zucchi made Apr 13 at 2018 9:30 AM

LCpl Shawn Zucchi — Fri, 13 Apr 2018 09:30:10 -0400

I completely agree with the staff seargent marines are marines let's just keep at that if your not a marine its hard to explain and they probably would not understand anyway.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 13 at 2018 10:32 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 13 Apr 2018 10:32:54 -0400

Huh

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 13 at 2018 11:00 AM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 13 Apr 2018 11:00:17 -0400

Tradition and pride aside i think it would be a smart and economical decision. Now pride and Traditions back in I think its a terrible idea. I'm currently serving as a school house instructor and the other day i asked a group of Marines to simply move some desks around. It was a simple task but it was done so well I was truly impressed. Now im not saying the USAF, US army, or the US navy could not have done it. Im just saying they couldnt of done it that well. The reason is because they were Marines and they took it seriously. The Marine Corps breeds people into war fighting Machines and that traslates into mission acomplishment. Whatever the mission you can count on the Marines to do their very best, becaus they are the very best. And it think if we consaoldated we would loose that fighting insticit as Marines we would loose our identity. I hope no other services are offended by this. Its just my opinion. If we were to ever consoldate it would have to be on the Marines terms and anyome who would want to join should have to go through boot camp. Maybe a shorter more intense one but some sort of "Marine" training would have to take place.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 13 at 2018 11:36 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 13 Apr 2018 11:36:55 -0400

Perhaps we could consolidate, but still have the 4 sections. We are somewhat doing that now with joint training and such. Maybe we just look at the redundancy and determine which branch is better and consolidate that element there. Gradual implementation, maybe some crossing over. Have a cut-in with recruitment. It would be a way of being a marine, airmen, soldier or sailor, but without too much redundancy. It would definately help us all work together when the mission comes up.

Response by PO1 George Metcalf made Apr 13 at 2018 12:55 PM

PO1 George Metcalf — Fri, 13 Apr 2018 12:55:40 -0400

I can see the Airforce to combine with the Navy. The navy keeps the marines

Response by PO1 George Metcalf made Apr 13 at 2018 12:56 PM

PO1 George Metcalf — Fri, 13 Apr 2018 12:56:36 -0400

No way they have way different missions.

Response by PO1 Paul Donigan made Apr 13 at 2018 2:29 PM

PO1 Paul Donigan — Fri, 13 Apr 2018 14:29:39 -0400

Would make more sense to combine Seabees with Marines. An all in one building and fighting component.

Response by AN Matt Spencer made Apr 13 at 2018 3:45 PM

AN Matt Spencer — Fri, 13 Apr 2018 15:45:38 -0400

We have different branches for a reason. Air force can t do navy. Army can t do navy. Marines are devil dogs for a reason. Each branch specializes in something others can t do. Never will you hear a Air force pilot land on a aircraft carrier. You will never hear a navy seaman storm the beach. You won't hear of a army guy steaming a ship. Marines storm a beach. Army shells ground targets with howitzers. Navy bombs and shells beach for marines to storm that beach. Coast guard, well coast guard just stays home and busts drug dealers.

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 13 at 2018 5:13 PM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 13 Apr 2018 17:13:44 -0400

It would make more sense to merge the air force and army. Navy and marines are already the same department.

Response by SGT Adam Kolin made Apr 13 at 2018 6:24 PM

SGT Adam Kolin — Fri, 13 Apr 2018 18:24:12 -0400

I may of been Army but the Marines have my respect. I believe the branches should remain how they are.

Response by Cpl Daniel Sixta made Apr 13 at 2018 8:10 PM

Cpl Daniel Sixta — Fri, 13 Apr 2018 20:10:27 -0400

Anyone who objectively thinks this is a good idea knows nothing about the Marine Corps. It makes sense that an outsider would think a merger was a good idea because of “similarities”, but unless you’ve served a tour of duty in the Marines then your objective opinion is worthless.

Response by SSgt Bob Wright made Apr 13 at 2018 8:24 PM

SSgt Bob Wright — Fri, 13 Apr 2018 20:24:27 -0400

Forget about it.

Response by A1C Philip Christian made Apr 13 at 2018 8:46 PM

A1C Philip Christian — Fri, 13 Apr 2018 20:46:26 -0400

No.
I don't want to say too much. But there's a reason they've been separate from the beginning. ALL branches should and do work together when necessary. And the rivalries should serve as motivation on both sides. Friendly competition if you will. But when we all wore the Stars and Stripes on our respective uniforms that's all that mattered.
The Air Force branched off from the Army Air Corps in 1947 so that it could progress on it's own respective path. Which also allowed for the Army to progress with it's own unique form of progress.
If anything the Marines might best consolidate with the Navy. But there too I see a consolidation of the Marines and Navy to be counterproductive.
Each branch of service has a different sort of mindsets.

Response by SGT Michael Wells III made Apr 13 at 2018 9:21 PM

SGT Michael Wells III — Fri, 13 Apr 2018 21:21:32 -0400

Nope. Two infantry branches are necessary to prevent military coups.

No offense to the Marines and what they earn, but Army jobs require higher asvab scores for us 'pogs'.

Response by Sgt Matthew Williams made Apr 13 at 2018 9:32 PM

Sgt Matthew Williams — Fri, 13 Apr 2018 21:32:13 -0400

NO! Each separate Military Branch performs different functions. The Army and Marines are both ground soldiers but separate in the almost similar basic function. But that's where the similarity ends! That's about as smart as merging the Air Force with the Army! Both branches have pilots but are trained for specific functions. And the totality of any merge would surely not be cost effective. All the cross-trading to facilitate the aeronautics, repair maintenance on planes worked on! I was an Air Force veteran in Vietnam! IWas trained to be a computer Opns specialist. My "training" in using the M-16 consisted of about 3 hours on the range during training. And another in Jan.1968 where we had a "refresher" hour to show the incompetent what happened when one switched the M-16 from the semi-auto to the auto discharge! Yes everybody killed the birds in the sky and we all had a big laugh!! BUT it wasn't funny, and we weren't prepared for our 1st incoming mortar attack nor the TET ground assault at DaNang! Nor were Air Force prepared for the carnage and horror of war!! Would Army want untrained ground troops fighting side-by-side?? Military intelligence after reviewing all the obvious road blocks, I'd have to say it would be a huge mistake! But then, I'm not the Big Brass that would make that kind of monumental‼️

Response by PO3 Rodney Artis made Apr 13 at 2018 9:50 PM

PO3 Rodney Artis — Fri, 13 Apr 2018 21:50:54 -0400

Being a Corpsman, I was attached to a Marine Corps unit for a while and I experienced the special bond that unifies all “Devil Dogs”. I was privileged to be considered a Marine and was given my own call sign. I come from a military family where two of my uncles were Vietnam era Marines. The answer to consolidating any or all parts of the Army or the Marine Corps is no. Marines are and have been special to American history and to merge them they would lose that uniqueness inherent to being a Marine. Leave things as they are and keep them both American warriors but unique in their distinctiveness

Response by SSgt Steven Lymburner made Apr 13 at 2018 10:18 PM

SSgt Steven Lymburner — Fri, 13 Apr 2018 22:18:25 -0400

The ground fighting that the Marin's do vs. what the Army does is vastly different. That is the entire reason why they are feared through the world. In the Marine Corps there is no throwing down your rifle and throwing your hands in the air and saying I surrender when your rifle jams as the soldiers of famously done at the beginning of the Iraq War. The Marines hook up there K bars and fight to the death.

Response by PO3 Jj Dell made Apr 13 at 2018 11:02 PM

PO3 Jj Dell — Fri, 13 Apr 2018 23:02:14 -0400

No they shouldnt be consolidated. Although from the outside they may all look like ground pounders they do have different roles to play. Our MEU did a cruise with us and ended up in northern Iraq during the first Gulf War. Not saying an army unit couldn't do it but marines are currently trained to do it. That's just one example and another one since I live next to Ft.Bragg the home of 82nd Airborne Division is are we going to start having marine troopers. While there are some there isn't a whole division. The 82nd has its role to play as well. I really don't see a benefit to consolidation.

Response by Cpl Steve Charland made Apr 13 at 2018 11:06 PM

Cpl Steve Charland — Fri, 13 Apr 2018 23:06:37 -0400

My Father, rest his soul did 22yrs and retired out of the grunts with 2 tours in Korea (5th RCT & 7thID). I did mine as grunt in the Corps at the end of Vietnam. Objectivity on this subject is a pipe dream. It's about identity. Every marine knows they are a Marine and understands what that means. Medium weight infantry comparisons with the 82nd and the rest are the only time you're getting close to measuring units that don't have the Army's overall identity crisis. So basically you're always going to end up in a argument about it. There's just a difference period. My father was a Ranger with the 82nd airborne, and was on the teams that pioneered HALO jumping for the army, I have the upmost respect for him but there were still was things we could not talk about together . It is what it is

Response by CPL Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 13 at 2018 11:09 PM

CPL Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 13 Apr 2018 23:09:48 -0400

Personal opinion on the matter... Marines or Army, you are still a United States Armed Forces Service Member. If they merge the two branches that is not saying "Oh we are going to make all Marines be Army soldiers now" or vice versa. Either way though, if it happens, it happens. Adapt to it, and continue serving, because that is why we are here. Joining the Military isn't about who has the biggest stick, it's about defending our nation. We all serve the same purpose, so just concentrate on that.

Response by 1SG Joseph Cevasco made Apr 14 at 2018 4:43 AM

1SG Joseph Cevasco — Sat, 14 Apr 2018 04:43:56 -0400

Considering Army's comabt arms misson truly simular to Marines but conbat support or other non combat organizations are not equal to Marines. I have served many times with Marines throughout my career and from my own experiences it would not be a smart choice of action to combine them
Into one service. In a general statement two very differnet caliber of services!

Response by SrA Jah Jordan made Apr 14 at 2018 7:57 AM

SrA Jah Jordan — Sat, 14 Apr 2018 07:57:00 -0400

Since none of the branches train in the same way, I can’t in good conscience lump any of them together. We each have specific training for our respective branch of service

Response by PVT John Williams made Apr 14 at 2018 9:44 AM

PVT John Williams — Sat, 14 Apr 2018 09:44:49 -0400

While ‘Land Squids’ earn their Goode and anchor,we earn our CIB and,for those lucky enough to survive,our Ranger Tabs. No offense,but I wouldn’t want to be associated with anything Navy. Lists just stay separate.

Response by CPL Joseph Higgins made Apr 14 at 2018 9:50 AM

CPL Joseph Higgins — Sat, 14 Apr 2018 09:50:32 -0400

No. The rivalry is beneficial. With Seals and Special Forces, there is already some consolidation. Their missions have some differences and I think it should stay as it is. I think traditions are important and should never be cast aside for any reason.

Response by Larry Burnett made Apr 14 at 2018 9:55 AM

Larry Burnett — Sat, 14 Apr 2018 09:55:58 -0400

I was an Army brat and was medically discharged during boot camp while trying to continue the legacy of my family. My Grandfather retired Sgt. Major in the Army. I could see where it may help in some ways but I don't think it would go over well with soldiers. Don't take this statement wrong but both branches carry a sense of pride about the branch they are in and most Marines I know carry a bigger chip on their shoulder than the Army men. Both branches have their own elite groups. As well Navy Seals have multiple branches among their special elite group. I respect all the branches and think if we were going to combine our branches back together, we should look into putting the Air Force back with the Army where it began and the Marines back with the Navy. I also think that there should be combined training between the ground units and air units for all branches, that way both branches and all soldiers from privates and up understand why and what each branch does and how they operate in situations when they are put in the same area. I have friends in both Army and Marines that have been in this war against terrorism and I can honestly say that their stories for the most part are identical. One of my Marine friends had probably the easiest time while another was in a shithole the whole time. One of my Army friends went 4 or 5 times and was in a shithole each time but one of the other ones was never in harms way really. So I feel it would cause issues between the soldiers. It would be like combining the bloods and crips in my opinion

Response by SrA Mike Lyons made Apr 14 at 2018 11:10 AM

SrA Mike Lyons — Sat, 14 Apr 2018 11:10:04 -0400

The 4 branches all have their corner of the "warfare" pie. The better fix is cross training the higher ranking enlisted and the officers to clear up communications across the branches

Response by SGT Bill Everidge made Apr 14 at 2018 11:29 AM

SGT Bill Everidge — Sat, 14 Apr 2018 11:29:36 -0400

Traditions and everything else aside, Marines hold a niche capability that the Army doesn't currently possess, Amphibious Assualt. Because they've done it for so long, they're quite good at it. To try and combine our collective forces would only create more problems than it'd solve. Besides, ask any Marine if they think this marriage would work, you'll have your anwser lol

Response by PFC Drew Grimm made Apr 14 at 2018 12:49 PM

PFC Drew Grimm — Sat, 14 Apr 2018 12:49:44 -0400

Well no offense to the leather necks but the The US army were the ones on the ground throughout all the wars we've been through. We pushed the Germans back from the Atlantic to Berlin twice. You jump train at Ft Benning. You have you're uses but you're not Soldiers.

Response by LCpl Zachary Freiberg made Apr 14 at 2018 1:41 PM

LCpl Zachary Freiberg — Sat, 14 Apr 2018 13:41:18 -0400

Absolutely not. Marines are already a dept of the Navy. No offense to the Army but they are an occupying force the Marines are not they are tje Navy s ground support also a shock troop why we go in first and leave last.

Response by LCpl Kenneth Holt made Apr 14 at 2018 1:55 PM

LCpl Kenneth Holt — Sat, 14 Apr 2018 13:55:58 -0400

No, just because of similarities? Get real the Marines were originally organized to protect the Navy because the Army didn't have the Manpower to fight on both land and sea I realize things have changed with each branch becoming a separate force having multiple specialties. What this boils down to is politics and funding, I don't pretend to be politically correct and I don't care who's feelings get hurt. Cut the pay the congressmen and senators get and we would have the money to support the Military. SEMPER FI.

Response by LCpl Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 14 at 2018 3:10 PM

LCpl Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 14 Apr 2018 15:10:33 -0400

Fuck no

Response by SGT Bob Teagle made Apr 14 at 2018 4:51 PM

SGT Bob Teagle — Sat, 14 Apr 2018 16:51:05 -0400

I prefer it the way it is. No disrespect to my fellow brothers in arms but I’m pretty dam proud to have fought and bled as a Ranger/Recondo in Vietnam. Oh that would be the US Army. Love your Seals though.

Response by Sgt Eric Vanatta made Apr 14 at 2018 5:24 PM

Sgt Eric Vanatta — Sat, 14 Apr 2018 17:24:21 -0400

Absolutely not!!! While yes, the Army serves its purpose, we Marines earned our title and no bureaucrat in Washington is going to take that away from us! The Corps is sacred, it is it's own religion, and we will NEVER accept any less!

Response by 1SG Mack Studdard made Apr 14 at 2018 7:15 PM

1SG Mack Studdard — Sat, 14 Apr 2018 19:15:06 -0400

Primarily the Marine job is to secure the beach for an army landing. They to have lost sight of that, where were they at Normandy?

Response by CPL Troy Benson made Apr 14 at 2018 7:28 PM

CPL Troy Benson — Sat, 14 Apr 2018 19:28:03 -0400

I was a paratrooper in the the 82nd. My take is if it ain't broke don't fix it.

Response by LCDR Steve Heida made Apr 14 at 2018 9:04 PM

LCDR Steve Heida — Sat, 14 Apr 2018 21:04:44 -0400

Two very different missions. I can see consolidation with an additional component (infantry, airborne, armor, etc.) called something like amphibous.

Response by SGT Richard Folgado made Apr 14 at 2018 10:52 PM

SGT Richard Folgado — Sat, 14 Apr 2018 22:52:15 -0400

The Air Force came out of the Army and today they are combining some of the Army/Air Force Bases (Joint Base Lewis McChord for example). I personally think there is just a wide range of cultural differences that would make merging difficult (NOT necessarily impossible, just really hard). Take something as simple as Army Acronyms! They differ HUGELY from base to base! There is absolutely no standardization from one place to another! You think you have it all memorized; PCS to another base and have to learn all over again! All the branches and every post or base is the same exact (different) way. Just speaking and trying to understand each other’s lingo; and the change that must come with it, will be maddening! Try fitting square pegs into round holes! Nobody wants to lose their identity!

Response by FN Scott Tipton made Apr 14 at 2018 11:17 PM

FN Scott Tipton — Sat, 14 Apr 2018 23:17:25 -0400

How would that work since the USMC already operates under the Department of the Navy?

Response by LCpl John Stanley made Apr 14 at 2018 11:32 PM

LCpl John Stanley — Sat, 14 Apr 2018 23:32:37 -0400

Naw, they both have rich traditions that should be kept. Consolidation usually weakens both elements. I love my Corps like my two brothers love their Army and Air Force.

Response by LCpl Timothy Jackson made Apr 15 at 2018 12:47 AM

LCpl Timothy Jackson — Sun, 15 Apr 2018 00:47:09 -0400

NO NEVER Semper Fi

Response by Cpl Justin Rawson made Apr 15 at 2018 12:55 AM

Cpl Justin Rawson — Sun, 15 Apr 2018 00:55:41 -0400

insulting to ANY Marine. The entire point of the Marine corps is to be an elite fighting force. what happens when it gets watered down by army tactics and procedures? it’s two different types of war fighting from each end. Marines are taught to take ground and always push. we’re not an occupying force as the army is. we secure it and move on.

Response by Cpl Austin Cook made Apr 15 at 2018 1:50 AM

Cpl Austin Cook — Sun, 15 Apr 2018 01:50:37 -0400

Hell no just no

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 15 at 2018 5:22 AM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 15 Apr 2018 05:22:27 -0400

America Doesn’t need a Marine Corps, they want one, the army gets their job job, but there isn’t a thing more important than mission accomplishment in the Corps, we take pride in what we wear, the traditions we have, and the title we earned. Even being called “Army” is offensive to us, due to the fact that the Marine Corps is very different, even the way we think

Response by SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 15 at 2018 9:12 AM

SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 15 Apr 2018 09:12:42 -0400

Heck NO...the USAF has no place in the USA. Different missions. Just because we were birthed from the Army Air Corps does not mean it was efficient. The USAF has evolved to be the defenders of air, space and cyber. Let the USA rule the ground and USAF rule the skies.

SMSgt R

Response by Maj Shane Grodack made Apr 15 at 2018 9:27 AM

Maj Shane Grodack — Sun, 15 Apr 2018 09:27:37 -0400

And....that’s why we have the Marines

Response by Cpl Luke Adler made Apr 15 at 2018 9:42 AM

Cpl Luke Adler — Sun, 15 Apr 2018 09:42:22 -0400

Response by LCpl Dennis Bushman made Apr 15 at 2018 12:20 PM

LCpl Dennis Bushman — Sun, 15 Apr 2018 12:20:55 -0400

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 15 at 2018 12:31 PM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 15 Apr 2018 12:31:51 -0400

No, I just finished USMC boot camp. I earned my title and I want to serve my country as a Marine. The army does great things, but it’s not the place for me. I joined the Marines for a reason, and I turned down the army for a reason too. Honor courage and commitment are values that I hold too dear to lose my title so soon

Response by MSG Robert McKinley made Apr 15 at 2018 2:48 PM

MSG Robert McKinley — Sun, 15 Apr 2018 14:48:25 -0400

In theory and on paper it would work. Practical application is a different story. While many functions are interchangeable, the organizational heritage and pride are not. Each soldier, sailor, marine and airman should feel they are the best warrior in the best squad in the best unit in the best organization in the world. Anything less encourages failure. Each branch and each unit within those branches has a proud heritage - don’t mess with that. So GO ARMY, GO NAVY, SEMPER FI, and whatever you flyboys say. We are still brothers in arms.

Response by LCpl Brian Carra made Apr 15 at 2018 3:41 PM

LCpl Brian Carra — Sun, 15 Apr 2018 15:41:48 -0400

Absolutely not. After serving in the Marines and Army National Guard. They are similar but their missions are entirely different. Besides the traditions of each help make each branch different.

Response by SFC Dana Beauvais made Apr 15 at 2018 3:54 PM

SFC Dana Beauvais — Sun, 15 Apr 2018 15:54:43 -0400

I'm prior Army reserves retired.No I think the Marine corps are a elite group, and theirs no need to change that now or ever.

Response by SSgt Robert Libby made Apr 15 at 2018 4:11 PM

SSgt Robert Libby — Sun, 15 Apr 2018 16:11:21 -0400

Having been deployed and gone to schools all over, I have had the chances to serve with work along side of all branches. I have also attended schools of the Army branch.
There are many things that separate us. Starting from day one and the difference in discipline that Marines have. This discipline develops leaders early on. Unlike any other branch Marines lead at lower ranks. This helps when sent into combat operations. Being able to send less troops with less gear and do more, allows for many different tactical advantages. No big surprise the Corps is the smallest branch and does far more with less.

There are many different issues we could easily argue here, and everyone has a point of view. However; I believe saying that any branch is “close enough” to another that they could just become one, is not even close to a valid argument at all. There are similar jobs and ability across the board. But that is as far as it goes. We do all serve a purpose. If the idea is to try and save money, the government should look elsewhere.

As for fire superiority with minimal troops on the ground, with low visibility, you have to pick the Corps hands down every time. Not to mention the only branch that can be anywhere in the world within 24 hours, with sustainability. The only branch able to be in the fight for 90 days before having approval. Doesn’t take an act of Congress to get us into the fight.

There is also a reason why the Corps is the choosen ones to protect the White House and the POTUS as well as Embassy’s around the world.

Response by SFC Killo Serafin made Apr 15 at 2018 7:01 PM

SFC Killo Serafin — Sun, 15 Apr 2018 19:01:46 -0400

No ! they each have their own missions and the reasons behind it.

Response by PO2 Dale Humphries made Apr 15 at 2018 7:15 PM

PO2 Dale Humphries — Sun, 15 Apr 2018 19:15:37 -0400

If it ain’t broke then don’t try to fix it

Response by PO3 James Stary made Apr 15 at 2018 7:41 PM

PO3 James Stary — Sun, 15 Apr 2018 19:41:51 -0400

What? No way. Two different missions!

Response by CSM William Payne made Apr 15 at 2018 9:34 PM

CSM William Payne — Sun, 15 Apr 2018 21:34:01 -0400

Can they, yes. Should they, probably not, if for nothing else other than tradition. In almost every recent poll taken, the Marines are by far the most prestigious of the services. As mentioned in earlier postings, they have their “story” down to a science; the war stories, the myths, the uniforms, the required bravado and they do an excellent job of inculcating every new Marine fully into their tradition. But when asked which is the most valuable service, the Army wins hands down. There is no mission that the Marines do that cannot be duplicated by the other services, amphibious assault, revisit D-Day / Normandy. But by the economy of scale, the Marines cannot duplicate the Army’s missions.

Response by Cpl Jacob Cook made Apr 15 at 2018 10:12 PM

Cpl Jacob Cook — Sun, 15 Apr 2018 22:12:19 -0400

We would still get the army's hand me downs lol semper fi, dont mess with the best

Response by LCpl Juan Hernandez made Apr 15 at 2018 10:13 PM

LCpl Juan Hernandez — Sun, 15 Apr 2018 22:13:33 -0400

I say no I served in the Corp and in the army. The Corp made a man out of me. The army isn't as focus as the Corp. Also the army was to focus on the individual then the team. They also didn't watch each other's backs like we did in the corp.

Response by Cpl Randy Hanson made Apr 15 at 2018 10:29 PM

Cpl Randy Hanson — Sun, 15 Apr 2018 22:29:09 -0400

Marines do it all land Airen and sea
If army wants to join marines then they can earn it like we had to same to the rest

Response by Sgt Patrick Miller jr made Apr 16 at 2018 12:07 AM

Sgt Patrick Miller jr — Mon, 16 Apr 2018 00:07:31 -0400

When in doubt, call the Marines, when you need it done right, and right now, again call the Marines. If there is time to coordinate a logistical, tactical strike, call both. There's room for both of these units at the table!!

Response by SSgt Rick Erens made Apr 16 at 2018 12:10 AM

SSgt Rick Erens — Mon, 16 Apr 2018 00:10:59 -0400

Absolutely Not!! Totally separate mission capabilities. There are so many reasons that I can list that this is wrong. Nothing on the Army. They're good at what they do and trained for and exactly why we need them separate.

Response by Sgt William Crews made Apr 16 at 2018 3:11 AM

Sgt William Crews — Mon, 16 Apr 2018 03:11:04 -0400

Response by PO3 Roger Reinhardt made Apr 16 at 2018 9:18 AM

PO3 Roger Reinhardt — Mon, 16 Apr 2018 09:18:00 -0400

No way.

Response by LCpl Chris Ficke made Apr 16 at 2018 9:44 AM

LCpl Chris Ficke — Mon, 16 Apr 2018 09:44:12 -0400

No way absolutely not. We as Marines are trained much harder then any other branch of service. Our boot is 3.5 months long, thts almost twice as long as the Army which is 9 weeks long. As a US Marine once you serve in the corps you can goto any other branch of service and join right up without having to go through their boot. None of the other branch's can say tht. We are the elite and have been from the start, not everyone becomes a Marine because not everyone can. You have to super tough more mentally then physically but tht doesn't hurt either.

Response by A1C Wm Wofford made Apr 16 at 2018 11:04 AM

A1C Wm Wofford — Mon, 16 Apr 2018 11:04:25 -0400

So this really all has to do with space exploration and conquering. The navy and USAF should and will consolidate And thus so should the core and army keeping core traditions and army heavy mech is the most practical. Having space marines is a must as such so is having mechs operated by traditional tank bergades. The traditions will remaIn in both houses and continue to grow as does the mission.

Response by PO3 John Fitzgerald III made Apr 16 at 2018 11:47 AM

PO3 John Fitzgerald III — Mon, 16 Apr 2018 11:47:23 -0400

Not a good idea. You can't just ignore the culture and traditions of either branch. Their missions are different also. Marines are the tip of the spear and army is sustained presence.
Apart from that, the marines are already combined with the Navy.
I could, however, see the Air Force and Army being combined.
But then, that leaves the coasties...
I suppose the highest ranking officers could meet for a roshambo competition to see how that plays out... loser gets the coast guard...
LOL

Response by 1LT Stephen Estopinal made Apr 16 at 2018 11:48 AM

1LT Stephen Estopinal — Mon, 16 Apr 2018 11:48:24 -0400

Marines are the ground combat arm of the navy. The army is the ground combat arm of the nation. Combining these branches makes sense, but if attempted, “Marine” will remain a distinction just as US Cav or Delta Force or any of the other units with Esprit de Corps

Response by Cpl Jeremy Saltz made Apr 16 at 2018 1:01 PM

Cpl Jeremy Saltz — Mon, 16 Apr 2018 13:01:20 -0400

Short answer no. One of the things that had made the Marine Corps a successful fighting force is that fact they utilize small unit leadership where the army does not. It’s more than just trusting your E3’s to lead a fire team when in the army you have E5’s doing the same thing. It’s developing marines at a younger time to push them selfs to become better warriors where the army seems to lack in that fact ( first hand experience contracting with army and marines you can definitely tell a difference in quality).

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 16 at 2018 1:14 PM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 16 Apr 2018 13:14:31 -0400

No inspite of what is published the Marine and the Army have different assignments. Fighting on the water or the waters edgeis very much different than fighting on solid ground.

Response by Cpl Curtis Jackson made Apr 16 at 2018 1:31 PM

Cpl Curtis Jackson — Mon, 16 Apr 2018 13:31:26 -0400

No, there is a solidarity that marines possess that I have never seen in any other branch, in my life time. Not even from even lifers of another branch . The pride is earned and moleded to perfection. Don’t take that away.

Response by PO2 Gregory Maupin made Apr 16 at 2018 1:37 PM

PO2 Gregory Maupin — Mon, 16 Apr 2018 13:37:07 -0400

Negative the Marine Corps is a branch of the Navy.

Response by PO1 Robert Stiriz made Apr 16 at 2018 1:48 PM

PO1 Robert Stiriz — Mon, 16 Apr 2018 13:48:39 -0400

No,leave the Marines alone,the Army and Marines do the same basic job,but in much different ways.

Response by Sgt Scott King made Apr 16 at 2018 4:34 PM

Sgt Scott King — Mon, 16 Apr 2018 16:34:02 -0400

I have a lot of friends that have served in the other branches. Each branch had their own mission. The Mairne Corps is the presidents own. I really honestly think there would be too many problems.

Response by SSG Kenneth Isaac made Apr 16 at 2018 5:41 PM

SSG Kenneth Isaac — Mon, 16 Apr 2018 17:41:23 -0400

In a word, no.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 16 at 2018 6:46 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 16 Apr 2018 18:46:00 -0400

No possibility. Missions, capabilities, training too different.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 16 at 2018 6:50 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 16 Apr 2018 18:50:38 -0400

Agreed with LTC Labrador. Too many differences in training, equipment, mission capabilities, just the historic differences.

Response by CPT Phillip Frost made Apr 16 at 2018 7:46 PM

CPT Phillip Frost — Mon, 16 Apr 2018 19:46:06 -0400

Noise

Response by SPC Kenneth Berry made Apr 16 at 2018 8:01 PM

SPC Kenneth Berry — Mon, 16 Apr 2018 20:01:25 -0400

The only way that the Army would ever let the Marine Corp in is if the powers who be would put them together. Both can do the same job, my job never stopped at 5pm and neither did my training. Saying was bleed in training not in combat. The only way these two would be put together is because the politicians wants less headaches. It is Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines. When the politicians hear anything about the military you always hear them say "A'NAM".

Response by CW3 Harvey K. made Apr 16 at 2018 8:06 PM

CW3 Harvey K. — Mon, 16 Apr 2018 20:06:01 -0400

I once worked for a Fortune 500 company that had two Divisions. The products assigned to each were pretty much duplicates of each other. Let's say one division sold Coca-Cola and the other sold Pepsi.
The idea was that the two divisions would compete with each other for sales, all of which meant profit for the corporation, which did not care if that profit came from Division 1 or Division 2. Profit was profit, no matter what Division generated it.
I'd encourage that kind of competition between the branches, for earned respect of a powerful military force, always emphasizing all their efforts are for the same flag, Constitution, and country.

Response by SGT Jake Weiler Pak made Apr 16 at 2018 8:56 PM

SGT Jake Weiler Pak — Mon, 16 Apr 2018 20:56:33 -0400

Stay as it is, we all have each other’s backs when it comes down to the wire, and it is one brotherhood. But there’s a lot of different aspects to each branch. Just fix communications with the upper echelon.

Response by LCpl William Fortune made Apr 16 at 2018 9:09 PM

LCpl William Fortune — Mon, 16 Apr 2018 21:09:46 -0400

No, in the Marines you don’t join it you become one. Besides who wants to wear a beret?

Response by Sgt Gordon Wybo made Apr 16 at 2018 10:49 PM

Sgt Gordon Wybo — Mon, 16 Apr 2018 22:49:50 -0400

ALL branches need to be streamlined and they most definitely need unilateral comms capability and training but to merge branches unless it is to combine The Corp with USN would prove to be too much trouble!!

Response by PO1 Brett Mills made Apr 17 at 2018 12:24 AM

PO1 Brett Mills — Tue, 17 Apr 2018 00:24:08 -0400

Ridiculous to consider this. It’ll be a training/retraining nightmare, and in the end there will no longer be extremely effective separate branches, there will be one mediocre branch.

Response by PO2 John Cook made Apr 17 at 2018 3:54 AM

PO2 John Cook — Tue, 17 Apr 2018 03:54:27 -0400

Response by Sgt Justin Solomon made Apr 17 at 2018 6:49 AM

Sgt Justin Solomon — Tue, 17 Apr 2018 06:49:03 -0400

All the branches are combat oriented. They all have different jobs. The Army seems to be spread thin, with too many units as is. Why try to give them another job? And, if you think they both do the same job, think again. The Marines take the land, and the Army turns it into a garrison. The Marines do more with less, while the Army has a “more is better” philosophy. The Marines conquer air land and sea. The Army concentrates on controlling land that has already been conquered. When was the last time you saw an Army Brigade pulling Security on a Navy ship? Exactly.

Response by PO3 Ellsworth Allen Westgate made Apr 17 at 2018 9:24 AM

PO3 Ellsworth Allen Westgate — Tue, 17 Apr 2018 09:24:29 -0400

With all the advanced technology, if it makes a better Miltary I'd say it's the way to go. It's a tough question! Each branch should hold on to some traditions if they do.

Response by SGT Michael Waverly made Apr 17 at 2018 11:37 AM

SGT Michael Waverly — Tue, 17 Apr 2018 11:37:14 -0400

No, you have a history of proud service in those specific branches. Any Veteran will tell you of what that means to them, especially Marines. Leave it alone, we Army people are still pissed off about taking the black berets away from the Rangers. That was wrong. Do not make another mistake like that.

Response by Sgt Shawn Edaburn made Apr 17 at 2018 12:02 PM

Sgt Shawn Edaburn — Tue, 17 Apr 2018 12:02:24 -0400

Response by SSG David White made Apr 17 at 2018 12:35 PM

SSG David White — Tue, 17 Apr 2018 12:35:33 -0400

No, the Marines have a different mission from the army. I mean they do some things the army doesn't, for instance, embassy guards, navy ship security. I am retired army, but in 1964 (holy crap), I attended second ITR at San Onofre.

Response by Sgt Dennis Loncon made Apr 17 at 2018 1:02 PM

Sgt Dennis Loncon — Tue, 17 Apr 2018 13:02:02 -0400

Perhaps, the army should roll into the Marines instead. Think of the PFT. The marines are known as the president's own and does not need congressional approval for the most part. Utilization of the Army requires congressional approval. The army is also an occupying force. The Marines are not... get in get out.

Response by SP5 Francis Lebo made Apr 17 at 2018 1:36 PM

SP5 Francis Lebo — Tue, 17 Apr 2018 13:36:22 -0400

No both branches are separate for a reason. Marines, God love there pointy little heads, specializes in amphibious lands. Army specializes in air and land assualts.

Response by LCDR Daniel Kooken made Apr 17 at 2018 2:30 PM

LCDR Daniel Kooken — Tue, 17 Apr 2018 14:30:21 -0400

I see the point, but .... I can’t. I. Just. Can’t.

Response by LCpl Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 17 at 2018 2:36 PM

LCpl Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 17 Apr 2018 14:36:33 -0400

Last time I checked the army was not amphibious. Yes they both are primarily ground forces. But they serve two completely different functions in the big picture. Marines are amphibious forces that are meant to take ground from the enemy. The army is a larger force that better serves occupying territory. Why consolidate the two?

Response by LCpl Fafnir Onoion made Apr 17 at 2018 2:42 PM

LCpl Fafnir Onoion — Tue, 17 Apr 2018 14:42:15 -0400

As a marine vet myself no
From my point of view we are trained totally different and each branch has their own trying plus the marines are known as the presidents own.
Also for arguments sake if merged the marine and aeny together who is going to protect the navy ships and our ambassy.guarding them is one of many missions of the marines and we do it with pride and held high ( even when we get the big green weinie)

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 17 at 2018 3:04 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 17 Apr 2018 15:04:10 -0400

A simple question should answer this rumor, “How many battles have the Army won and lost compared to the Marines?”

Response by SGT Jeremy Petoskey made Apr 18 at 2018 1:22 AM

SGT Jeremy Petoskey — Wed, 18 Apr 2018 01:22:52 -0400

There is a big difference between the two services. Self discipline being the biggest difference between Marines and Soldiers. I should know, I served in both branches. Keep the branches separate.

Response by LCpl Trace Schweizer made Apr 18 at 2018 9:42 AM

LCpl Trace Schweizer — Wed, 18 Apr 2018 09:42:48 -0400

USMC VET. No way consolidation would be ridiculous the Marines and the Army have very different purposes and missions and while there may be some overlap but overall there is little. Dot-dot because of that Army and Marine Corps Doctrine, tactics, training, and even weaponry are very different any potential cost savings of consolidation we'll be offset by ineffectiveness and loss of life.

Response by Cpl Mark Limbaugh made Apr 19 at 2018 1:50 PM

Cpl Mark Limbaugh — Thu, 19 Apr 2018 13:50:07 -0400

No the Army would have to get more disciplined if they want to be even close to the marines

Response by MSgt Fred B made Apr 19 at 2018 11:18 PM

MSgt Fred B — Thu, 19 Apr 2018 23:18:59 -0400

Absolutely not.

Response by LCpl John Gill made Apr 20 at 2018 10:47 AM

LCpl John Gill — Fri, 20 Apr 2018 10:47:35 -0400

No. From what I seen of the average Army units(infantry) They do not have a pride in their branch as much as the Marines.Sorry they just don't. That in it self moves to the battle feild. Most units lack of discipline also moves with them . They do not fight like the Marines. Now I know what your thinking. I didn't say their elite units . I have great respect for their Rangers,Airborne,Green Berets, Cav units. How ever the Army could step it up in discipline,accountability in their ranks would make better Soldiers. The U.S. Citizen may not need a Marine Corps but they Damn sure want one. If given a choice of being put in the Army or A Transfer to another branch ,or getting out. I would get out. I didn't want any other Branch . That's why I was a Marine

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 21 at 2018 4:51 PM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 21 Apr 2018 16:51:25 -0400

Well there's a leagal reason for the marines vs the army. You can call in the Marines with out congressional approval for up to 90 days.

Response by SSG Guy Gould made Apr 22 at 2018 8:09 PM

SSG Guy Gould — Sun, 22 Apr 2018 20:09:30 -0400

The training standards are different for a reason. Each branch has a different purpose. Each branch needs to train for that purpose much the same as each military occupational specialty refines their training for their purpose. Each branch has its own significant mindset and skill set.

Response by CPO Dennis Conley made Apr 24 at 2018 7:36 AM

CPO Dennis Conley — Tue, 24 Apr 2018 07:36:27 -0400

NO!!

Response by CWO2 James Mathews made Apr 24 at 2018 8:37 AM

CWO2 James Mathews — Tue, 24 Apr 2018 08:37:34 -0400

My service was with the Navy for some 20 years, but during that time I had the advantage to work closely with Marines. First as a junior PO, working with a marine contingent assigned to my submarine, secondly as a security and liaison officer to a marine detachment on a submarine tender, and lastly as a Command Duty Officer calling on marines to respond to emergency situations which arose, as well as the endless drills dealing with the nuclear aspects of a naval vessel carrying such materials. What I found was that the Marines had a very distinct view about their military task and responsibility and I never met a marine who did not deeply feel that he was in a special group of military people. My brief association with the Army was a more relaxed view of their duties and responsibilities. I do not take anything away from the Army or the Marine Corps, but the Corps seems to have a more severe training program, in my experience, and their response to my needs and calls were always fast and severely effective. On one occasion, in response to a special drill, the first marine who arrived was stark naked except for a bandolier of ammo, and his rifle! I just feel that the Army has a similar set of duties, but while a large part of the Army's response is both invasion and occupation, the Marines are more styled and trained for being the first on the scene to pave the way and take the first thrust of the enemy. I am NOT a Marine, I am Navy, but my experience tells me there is a special something about being a Marine, just as there is about being a Submariner!

Response by SSG Douglas McCarty made Apr 26 at 2018 8:01 PM

SSG Douglas McCarty — Thu, 26 Apr 2018 20:01:32 -0400

As a former Army recruiter I found many young adults trying to make life choices for their future. Opening just one door with an opportunity to see what's available to them under the Department of Defense for all services has to be better than visiting 3 or 4 different recruiters. There will always be a percentage of recruits who join for service of country and they will typically choose a branch that their family is already had a history with. Allowing someone to see what's available across all services based on their qualifications and availability only serves to make a better recruit. Limiting those choices may build resentment at some point during their service. Opening everything to a new recruit would also help with individuals who may not make it in one service due to a training issue (not a problem child) find something in another field or branch that they may excell in. The DoD has to be looking at ways to save money across the board and some services are already lowering their goals for year. The DoD needs to find ways to compete with job opportunities in new and exciting ways or it will continue to see a decline from all services. I don't think we need break down any service into one large service but only change the enlistment process to one DoD mission and that is to find the best individual for each position. I still believe in the long and storied traditions of all the services built over the centuries. Having someone in the right job only benefits a better military and a more motivated individual.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 27 at 2018 9:42 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 27 Apr 2018 09:42:19 -0400

Nope. Because then there is gonna be another huge change to the Army uniform and I think we can all agree that the Army changes uniforms like a two year old at a play date. Also I didn't earn the Eagle Globe and Anchor being in the Army. That's like giving an E-5 or E-6 slot to someone who has no prior experience in a MOS they just graduated from.

Response by 1stLt Matthew Hicks made May 1 at 2018 2:56 PM

1stLt Matthew Hicks — Tue, 01 May 2018 14:56:56 -0400

No! The USMC is the only branch that can completely sustain itself in combat operations: Ground, Air, Logistics all ready to go at a moments notice.
If you want to get rid of stuff, start chopping the civilians and legislative branch folks who make procurement a ridiculous process!

Response by SCPO Larry Knight Sr. made May 2 at 2018 7:05 PM

SCPO Larry Knight Sr. — Wed, 02 May 2018 19:05:26 -0400

In response on this once again, let me be profoundly clear there's absolutely nothing analytical to this equation ! Sure the Army has it's strengths and so it should remain it's own entitie. The United States Marine Corps is and always will be at the for front of the sea/land expeditionary force. They will be at the door step of any radical worldwide in conjunction with the absolute finest Naval fighting forces! Not taking anything from the Army's capability, but to suggest such a shift of joint merger is preposterous. Their oorah-semper Fi comes from a part of their anatomy and cannot be combined with the Hooah of the Army. I have hadthe distinct pleasure of serving with some outstanding veterans of all branches. I will be the first to say that a United States Marine stands out in a crowed, with such distinction which set them up a notch above the gold stripe down the pant leg of their brethren on the other side of the isle. So absolutely no way too this from any level....

Response by MSgt Brian Williams made May 3 at 2018 10:26 AM

MSgt Brian Williams — Thu, 03 May 2018 10:26:11 -0400

Nope. Army is great at taking and holding ground. Marines are great at taking it - quickly. So says the AF dude.

Response by Sgt Tammy Wallace made May 4 at 2018 1:04 PM

Sgt Tammy Wallace — Fri, 04 May 2018 13:04:57 -0400

No.

Response by Sgt Michael Ahl made May 7 at 2018 3:19 PM

Sgt Michael Ahl — Mon, 07 May 2018 15:19:51 -0400

I was always told that the word ARMY was an acronym for Ain't Ready To be Marines Yet!! Sorry my dog face brothers.. love you all and enjoyed working together with you all in piece time and combat.. everyone Must remember that we are all Warriors in this most dangerous time in the world , but please let us keep our proud name Marine... another acronym standing for Mussels Are Required, Intelligence Not Essential!!! Semipermanent Fi my brothers!!!!!

Response by CPT Michael Berentz made May 7 at 2018 11:07 PM

CPT Michael Berentz — Mon, 07 May 2018 23:07:50 -0400

Nothing to do with pride. They each have different roles, so no.
Besides, the Dept of the Navy probably wouldn't allow the Marines to play that closely with others...lol!

Response by SGT Mark Saint Cyr made May 8 at 2018 11:06 AM

SGT Mark Saint Cyr — Tue, 08 May 2018 11:06:26 -0400

No.

You're asking American fighting men (and women) to put aside Traditions and Camaraderie.

So how do you expect to get them ready to go fight?

Different strokes for different folks. Some like the Army, and the type of duty it has...some like the Gung ho attitude of the Marines, some like the better training of technical skills in the Navy.

Okay, we'll spend a bit more for separate conditions, but these tend to appeal to a broader cross section of Americans, and make it easier to recruit.

Do this, and you guarantee to bring back the draft. Because no one is going to volunteer to serve Uncle Sam if some bureaucrat is going to be given too much control on how someone serves. And putting all the eggs in one basket will surely do that.

Response by CPT Jim Kotva made May 14 at 2018 10:25 AM

CPT Jim Kotva — Mon, 14 May 2018 10:25:23 -0400

In 1947 President Truman wanted to merge the Marine Corp with the Army and Air Force Corp. The generals of the Marine Corp did some fancy campaigning showing how well they fought in W.W.II and as we see were successful in keeping the Marine Corp in tack

Response by CDR Bruce Maley made May 15 at 2018 11:54 AM

CDR Bruce Maley — Tue, 15 May 2018 11:54:14 -0400

I am a Retired Navy CMDR from the Viet Nam era. I took care of Navy/Marine families and them on 3month shifts. I was in for 9 years and my Dad was a 27year Navy vet. He was in the Pacific in WW2. With this history, I definitely feel the Marines do not belong with the Army . They have a long standing relationship and part of the Navy. Marines are Marines and no changes are needed.

Response by CPL Peter King made May 15 at 2018 10:43 PM

CPL Peter King — Tue, 15 May 2018 22:43:17 -0400

No, each has a very distinct role.

Putting a different badge on someone doesn’t make them a specialist in a given role.

I really don’t see how communications are simplified? Via atts & dets a force can be augmented as needed.

If Marines need Army Tank/Artillery Support they can call for it.

Response by CPL Peter King made May 15 at 2018 10:49 PM

CPL Peter King — Tue, 15 May 2018 22:49:17 -0400

Also the roles are very different. The Army’s job is to push the enemy in to the sea, the Marines job is to push the enemy in to the land.

Response by CPL Peter King made May 15 at 2018 11:23 PM

CPL Peter King — Tue, 15 May 2018 23:23:26 -0400

It should also be noted the largest amphibious invasion in history was conducted by the Army - D Day

Response by PO1 David M Burns made May 17 at 2018 6:10 AM

PO1 David M Burns — Thu, 17 May 2018 06:10:35 -0400

No way the army could not even shine the shoes of the Marines! Except for the special operations troops!

Response by GySgt Tom Prince made May 17 at 2018 2:20 PM

GySgt Tom Prince — Thu, 17 May 2018 14:20:59 -0400

"Mar-my"?....wtf...hell no!! Semper fidelis.

Response by Sgt Jerry Genesio made May 19 at 2018 1:23 PM

Sgt Jerry Genesio — Sat, 19 May 2018 13:23:31 -0400

Think objectively? Sorry! Marine Boot Camp totally cleansed me of that offense more than 60 years ago!

Response by GySgt Moses Lozano made May 20 at 2018 1:17 PM

GySgt Moses Lozano — Sun, 20 May 2018 13:17:46 -0400

Hell no! The Army is made for long time occupation and logistical support aside from it's basic purpose of combat. While the Marine Corps, is made to kill and destroy the enemy at the drop of a hat and get out. In addition, all Marines are trained to have a combat ready mind set while the Army is not. Each branch serves their own purpose. Why do we need an Air Force when both the Marines, Navy and Army have their own aircraft?

Response by SPC Clay Wilson made May 22 at 2018 9:07 AM

SPC Clay Wilson — Tue, 22 May 2018 09:07:53 -0400

Factor into the question at hand....... are we humans or robots? Then apply your logic as best suits your answer and the reason for it. Anyone care to guess mine?

Response by Capt Daniel Goodman made May 23 at 2018 4:30 PM

Capt Daniel Goodman — Wed, 23 May 2018 16:30:24 -0400

You know, that's an interesting thought...if one looks at the clinical side, to my way of thinking, all the clinical stuff, all of it, everything, should've been grouped together a long time ago, I mean, the idea of having three separate clinical groups, in Army, Navy, and USAF, then having the USPHS separately, as well as the VA hospitals, always seemed to me more than a trifle dumb, there should've been total compatibility, with complete data interchange with all the major hospital chains, with whatever HIPAA stuff would be needed for privacy, I just think that would've sped up completely combining them...then too, if one looks at NASA and NOAA, their functions to quite heavily also overlap, plus, the NOAA Corps, being a military service, or uniformed, whatever, I've also thought they could both be quite well combined as well...the thing with combining services the way Canada does it, for example, is that one loses a good deal of esprit de corps, I should think, not to mention, though this would probably be said to not matter terribly much, a good deal of the fun of making comparisons between services...I can certainly perceive a good deal of rationale due to both being combat arms organizations, though...I mean, if one looks at all the different flight ops, Army helicopters, Navy and USAF aircraft, NOAA aircraft, USCG aircraft, I suppose one could extend the analogy to creating one huge hodgepodge of combined service organizations based strictly on function...now I don't deny that might be more effiicent organizationally, however, it completely ignores traditions, which are once again inextricably linked to esprit de corps...common training to minimize cost? Yeah, absolutely, to some rational extent...however, merely because services overlap as to equipment, or superficial aspects of actual day-to-day function, doesn't necessarily mean that they can be instantaneously combined with no thought whatever to the psychology of those actually doing the work, and their morale in doing it...might that pass over time? Perhaps...Canada merged a lot of their stuff, they didn't fall apart...it just would lose a good deal of the flavor inherent in each organization, that helps make each unique, and besides, it'd probably wind up getting rid of the Army-Navy game, if one carried the whole thing to an ostensibly logical extreme, and obviously nobody would put up with that certainly, you know?

Response by Private RallyPoint Member made May 24 at 2018 12:49 PM

Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 24 May 2018 12:49:21 -0400

how to do this

Response by PFC Bill Herman made May 24 at 2018 11:13 PM

PFC Bill Herman — Thu, 24 May 2018 23:13:44 -0400

Never. Possibly a combining of the units would save some money, but the loss of pride, world acknowledgment of the differences, history and training is very important to all of them separately. They each also have their special forces which are very good at what they do. Besides, the Corps is still somewhat under the Navy's jurisdiction, that's enough.
Wha's needed is financial accountability at the top of each one. That will save more than enough money.
Former Marine, Semper Fi

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made May 25 at 2018 6:32 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 25 May 2018 18:32:25 -0400

Apparently we should first educate the entire military on the meaning of the word "objective".

Response by SSG John Eroh made May 27 at 2018 4:08 PM

SSG John Eroh — Sun, 27 May 2018 16:08:49 -0400

No, The Army & Marine Corps have different missions. Besides storming the beaches, the Marines guard our embassies word wide as well as protect the Navy's ships. While the Army's job is to then take the land and hold it.

Thee one job that should be consolidated into a separate service is the inter-base & long range communications That would save a bunch of money from what is now often duplicated at nearby installations. In Korea, the Army did this in the "backbone system" of microwave stations between the Army, Air Force & Navy installations when I was there in 67/68, 77 & 80 when I spent some time at Osan AB and a joint ROK/US AF & Army installation. During my 1st tour in Korea we were told that the long range plan for STRATCOM (Strategic Communications Command) & later Army Communications Command was to become a separate service along with our counterparts from the AF & Navy with our own chain of command, uniforms, etc. to handle all the long range & inter-base communications. The majority of my duty was under Defense Communications System standards anyway so it still sounds like a good idea to me. I think it didn't happen because nobody wanted to give up their control and money.

Response by MAJ Wiley Winter made May 27 at 2018 5:31 PM

MAJ Wiley Winter — Sun, 27 May 2018 17:31:27 -0400

No. The mission of the Marines is different from that of the Army.

Response by PV2 Rigo Rivas made May 27 at 2018 11:30 PM

PV2 Rigo Rivas — Sun, 27 May 2018 23:30:53 -0400

The Marines like to Focus on the support side of the Army and look down on the whole group. There is actually more Combat Arms in the Army than there are Marines as a Branch. By at least twice. And I’ve been told more when you count Reserves and National Guard.
The Army has recently changed the PT Test. It’s no longer just Push Ups and Sit Ups and Pull Ups for Airborne. It’s a lot more than just that. The Army Infantry OSUT will be lengthened to 22 Weeks at least. And this will make it harder to join than the other Branches.
I did 16.5 Weeks OSUT to join the Army. I had to do Push Ups Pull Ups and Sit Ups every morning as well as the other Exercise for Upper Body and we ran as much as Marines do when they do the run portion of the PT. This went on for 16.5 Weeks and at the end we had to be tested for three days station after station test after test. We had to stay awake for three days during this time and at the end we had to do our 24k Road March. I don’t think that our training was less than Marine’s at all. Our drill Sgt was a Green Beret and I’m sure his level of fitness and years in Special Forces made him a better instructor than the Marine Drills who don’t have as much knowledge as the Army Drills do.
The Marines sure do bring a lot of Firepower to the enemy from the Sea. Sure that is true but the Army does do this type of war too and for many years there was Army Infantry in those ships with the Navy and the Marines doing those landings. In fact the Army has a huge fleet of Vessels that carry tanks and equipment and soldiers from the Sea too. The Marines can’t say they are the only ones that will come from the sea.
The Airborne Forces get there faster and are inserted deeper into enemy territory than Marines do and they have to work at a Faster Pace than the Marines coming from the Sea with tanks and Heavy Equipment. The Airborne Forces have to secure an airport or create a landing strip somewhere to bring in the Heavy Equipment but they do it and even in Granada which is an Island the First place that was attacked was by Airborne Rangers and it was the Airport. It’s not a Guarantee that because it’s an Island that it will only be Marines there and the Marines don’t get there first. Airborne attacks first. They get the Heavy Equipment there by Air and it works.
There’s is Also the Armies Heavy Armor. The Armor from the Army is much more of a nightmare to the Enemy than just the Marines from the sea who also bring Navy and Even Army with them. If Marines bring more firepower than Airborne and considered medium weight imagine the Heavier Armor Brigades from the Army which is even more Firepower and more Heavy Equipment.
The Marines arent better than our Combat Arms in the Army. They just like to compare us all the Support side and ignore the Combat Side all together. Which dwarfs the Marines in numbers.

Response by LCpl William Warren made May 30 at 2018 10:59 AM

LCpl William Warren — Wed, 30 May 2018 10:59:13 -0400

No, they should not combine. The USMC exists as a component of the Department of the Navy for a good reason. That said, there is a good argument to be made that the USMC is misused and often does jobs which really should be done by the Army.

The USMC really exists to project and protect our Naval power. It is a light assault force ideal for rapid deployment globally. It is well designed for quick projection of power near shore, and cutting out operations exceeding those done by small unit special forces. It is also well suited to defend the geography surrounding Naval institutions, a job for which the Army would be misused and for which the Navy itself is not designed.

On the other hand, long term combat operations using heavy infantry, not connected to sea power, really are the job of the Army. So in a place like Afghanistan, while it might be necessary to send the Marines in at the start of operations, and thereafter as needed to supplement the Army if there’s an issue, it’s not clear why the USMC would fight there for years instead of the Army.

Response by SP5 John Petrasek made Jun 1 at 2018 11:10 AM

SP5 John Petrasek — Fri, 01 Jun 2018 11:10:14 -0400

Response by PFC Christopher Harris made Jun 1 at 2018 4:20 PM

PFC Christopher Harris — Fri, 01 Jun 2018 16:20:05 -0400

It’s an insult to the army as well you jar head we train just as hard so I’m offended we all serve a purpose and we all train hard so watch your step when talking about the army we’re just as good as marines better I think ha ha

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2018 11:18 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 02 Jun 2018 23:18:08 -0400

The USMC is a redundant capability. Reality is they are a force that’s only 22% combat arms that has less than an army division worth of fighting men and women. I mean the last time they did an actual amphibious assault, the Army was still doing them and more often than the Marines were. Says a lot about a group of individuals when they have to brag that initial entry training was this and that.

Response by SFC Pj Jayne made Jun 5 at 2018 1:38 PM

SFC Pj Jayne — Tue, 05 Jun 2018 13:38:36 -0400

What harm is a service ribbon causing ? Leave things as they are.

Response by LCpl Matt P. made Jun 5 at 2018 3:58 PM

LCpl Matt P. — Tue, 05 Jun 2018 15:58:04 -0400

Absolutely not...I spent 11 weeks earning the title of United States Marine, I would never give up that special personal accomplishment, we are unique, a "specialty" branch of the military, no other branch can use their branch of service as their title. The Air Force has airmen, the Army has soldiers, the Navy has sea men...I am a Marine and I was part of the Marines, I can claim that title all my life, Is, Was...always will be. A single part of the total, our Corps, we have our own land forces, air wing and the "gator navy".

Response by SPC George Saunders made Jun 8 at 2018 11:10 PM

SPC George Saunders — Fri, 08 Jun 2018 23:10:13 -0400

No ! We didn’t call the sailors at anytime for anything !

Response by Sgt John Mostowski made Jun 13 at 2018 10:11 AM

Sgt John Mostowski — Wed, 13 Jun 2018 10:11:25 -0400

As I posted earlier - TEAMWORK

Response by PO3 Ian Favata made Jun 13 at 2018 2:53 PM

PO3 Ian Favata — Wed, 13 Jun 2018 14:53:31 -0400

No. I’m former navy and have an affinity for marines. The army and marines are not the same so the question should really be should we get rid of one and change the mission overall for the remainder. Of course the rational answer is no. What moron asked this question?

Response by LTC Lewis Cox made Jun 13 at 2018 7:49 PM

LTC Lewis Cox — Wed, 13 Jun 2018 19:49:06 -0400

Yes using drill sergeant from both services train the one training outfit but slanted toward the marine tight basic.

Response by Sgt Mervyn Russell made Jun 21 at 2018 11:11 PM

Sgt Mervyn Russell — Thu, 21 Jun 2018 23:11:33 -0400

OK, it's been 49 years since I was a Marine. My dad was in the Marines during WW11. There is a certain amount of pride that you gain when you finish boot camp of the Marine Corps that just never leaves you. The marines are a tradition that's been carried on for almost 243 years or will be on November the 10th of this years. Not taking anything away from the Army or the Navy or any of the other branches. But, once a Marine always a Marine.

Response by SFC Joseph Trippodo made Jun 26 at 2018 7:21 AM

SFC Joseph Trippodo — Tue, 26 Jun 2018 07:21:54 -0400

After 28 years Ive seen the best and worst of all Branches of Service. I do not think the USMC should be tampered with, they should remain Naval Infantry, or whatever defines tough sons of guns. Perhaps the Air Corps is not a bad idea but still called US Army Air Forces. perhaps even more specialisation of the USMC and reduced generalisation (leave that to the Army) If the Marine Corps is a Dagger, the Army is a Sledge Hammer. Use the tool that the job in question calls for.

Response by Sgt Charles McDonald made Jun 29 at 2018 1:34 AM

Sgt Charles McDonald — Fri, 29 Jun 2018 01:34:49 -0400

Mixing oil with water!

Response by SFC Geoff Berner made Jun 29 at 2018 3:13 PM

SFC Geoff Berner — Fri, 29 Jun 2018 15:13:34 -0400

No, they have different missions. They will occasionally work together for a specific mission.

Response by SPC Charles Keiser made Jul 1 at 2018 9:23 AM

SPC Charles Keiser — Sun, 01 Jul 2018 09:23:04 -0400

MORE GOVERNMENT BILL SHIT WANTING TO SCREW WITH SOMETHING THAT WORKS ! LINE OUR MILITARY UP FOR A EASEY KILL LIKE OBAMA DID WITH OUR ENTIRE SUBMARINE CORP. IN VIRGINIA WHILE IN OFFICE ORDERD ALL SUBS INTO HARBER LINED UP LIKE LITT LE DUCKS , FORT HOOD TEXAS MULTY UNITS GAMED ON ONE BASE WHAT A SCORE EXAMPLE AT HOOD ONE MUSLIM A MAGER KILLES 38 PLUS AMERICANS AND HE IS STILL ALIVE ? WE AS A NATION HAVE AND ARE BEING GROOMED FOR A FALL, WE THE PEOPLE BEST WAKE UP PRONTO !

Response by SPC Charles Keiser made Jul 1 at 2018 9:33 AM

SPC Charles Keiser — Sun, 01 Jul 2018 09:33:30 -0400

SHORE UP OUR MILITARY DON'T STACK IT UP !

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 3 at 2018 5:49 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Jul 2018 17:49:10 -0400

I wouldn't have minded consolidating ALL the Military branches. There are certain schools, which are only available to a particular branch. If it were all one force, those schools would be more accessible to Service Members.

For example, I LOVED flying Black Hawk helicopters and would never trade that experience, but if I'd decided I wanted to fly F-18s, I'd have had to transfer from the Army to the Navy. If I'd wanted to fly AV-8s, I'd have had to switch to the USMC. If I'd wanted to fly C-17s, I'd have had to switch to the USAF.

If it were all one force, there'd still be no guarantee that I could switch between air frames, but it would certainly be easier filling out a Soldier Action Form, than it would be to switch from one branch to the other.

There are multiple other examples of training and qualifications which are specifically available to certain branches. I'm sure ground troops in the U.S. Army could benefit from the swimming qualifications available to the USMC. Similarly, the USMC could benefit from the logistical capabilities of the U.S. Army.

And we'd ALL be a lot happier with USAF Dining Facilities. :-D

Response by SSgt Steve Kline made Jul 5 at 2018 3:01 AM

SSgt Steve Kline — Thu, 05 Jul 2018 03:01:56 -0400

Ask this question at the same time: Why does the Army need all the different groups such as Airborne, Infantry, Armor, Artillery...why not combine them all into a combined force and eliminate communication issues and provide full coverage to all situations when needed?

Response by CPO Mike Castro made Jul 10 at 2018 5:41 PM

CPO Mike Castro — Tue, 10 Jul 2018 17:41:31 -0400

I ve been saying since the 90s that the Goverment is working towards having just a military. I recommend removing the sentence about Navy and Air Force lack of combat contact. It makes you appear as a complete idiot.

Response by LtCol Stan Hendrickson made Jul 12 at 2018 9:53 PM

LtCol Stan Hendrickson — Thu, 12 Jul 2018 21:53:06 -0400

It is the Marine Corps that serves as the diplomatic arm of the services and as such they can be stationed in nations without a formal declaration of hostilities...some neutral countries request that marine legation staff wear civilian clothes

Response by 1SG Klayton W. Hayes made Jul 15 at 2018 1:43 AM

1SG Klayton W. Hayes — Sun, 15 Jul 2018 01:43:10 -0400

What and put a end to sea going bell Hops?

Response by PO1 Paul Dormont made Jul 16 at 2018 12:09 AM

PO1 Paul Dormont — Mon, 16 Jul 2018 00:09:02 -0400

BS. Incompatibility issues. The ethos of each branch won't mesh. What a ridiculous question. That is a question that could only have been presented by a wannabe Sailor. Not feeling very charitable anymore towards those who do not find their own lot in life challenging, interesting or of sufficient merit to bear more in-depth investigation and development. An E-6 who has to concern himself with other branches? In the immortal words of Col. Sherman Potter: "Horse hockey".

Response by SP5 Geoffrey Vannerson made Jul 16 at 2018 11:19 AM

SP5 Geoffrey Vannerson — Mon, 16 Jul 2018 11:19:24 -0400

Questions like this really tick me off!!! NO BRANCH OF SERVICE IS SUPERIOR OVER ANOTHER!!! It's O.K. to think that; however, if you truly believe that then you are a SADLY mistaken. In one post I read it said "we earned our Eagle, Globe, and Anchor." News flash, we all earned something and honestly the Marines are part or should I say a sub-part of the Navy. Instead of trying to figure out a way to unite the branches lets start with the country we signed on to defend first. It doesn't matter what branch you signed on/in to you all fight for the same nation. Too much of an EGO can get you your ass handed to you. With out boats we don't get there, without planes we don't get there, and without soldiers we get nothing done.......

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 19 at 2018 11:20 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 Jul 2018 11:20:31 -0400

At the service level NO, they shouldn't be combined, for all of the reasons previously listed, however within DOD, sub-components should be combined, we don't need separate training facilities for Medical, Intel, etc. Support / service support functions should be combined, and combat uniforms should as well. I understand and support the different dress uniforms, even if esprit de corps was the only reason it would be a valid enough reason, but camouflage should be determined based on the environment it's being used in (kinda the whole point of camo), not the service to which one belongs. This applies to a whole host of equipment, the vast majority should be universal, with specialist pieces issued to / used by those that need that specific item. That would save a huge portion of the various service budgets, and could be born directly by DOD without being parceled out, with a substantial reduction in overhead.

Response by Jerry Rivas made Jul 19 at 2018 10:28 PM

Jerry Rivas — Thu, 19 Jul 2018 22:28:02 -0400

No...

Response by SSgt Brett Ontiveros made Jul 20 at 2018 6:44 PM

SSgt Brett Ontiveros — Fri, 20 Jul 2018 18:44:04 -0400

HELL NO!!!! Please dont ever insult the Marines again with this crazy thinking!!! I’ve served in both and there really is a world of difference. This really would be a terrible idea!

Response by SPC Joseph Durham made Jul 25 at 2018 5:39 PM

SPC Joseph Durham — Wed, 25 Jul 2018 17:39:38 -0400

Could the standard US Army Infantry do everything Marine? If the right training was given, of course. But there is a problem. Teaching one soldier to do every mission means that soldier just spent 4 years worth of training to get out after first enlistment and become a highly paid security specialist making well over $100k and some making over $200k. The military will never be able to get any use out of the people it trains.

Response by Julie Love MEP made Jul 29 at 2018 11:24 AM

Julie Love MEP — Sun, 29 Jul 2018 11:24:52 -0400

Why? For what purpose? ALL are military. Each created with a specific purpose in mind. Each branch is strong based on their missions and design. Whether Coast Guard, Marine, Army, Navy, or Air Force. In the interest of saving money I suppose they could all wear the same uniforms. That alone would save millions. Each specialty would have their unique insignia of course and their own duty uniforms as needed. Training for specialty units would be unique as well, designed for the position and duties required. NOT made easier for any reason. The job needed is still that job and certain skills are still required to do that job. But that's another discussion.
There is a pride that goes with belonging to a certain branch and that pride begins in bootcamp. That pride will still be built even if the recruit graduates belonging to the military and not a specific branch. Earning your stripes, earning your way up, earning that specialty position still holds the same value. My brothers are former marines. One served in intelligence and was a sniper and the other flew F-18s. They will both tell you "once a marine always a marine." My son is a chief warrant officer in the Coast Guard. He has served on one coast to the other. Led recruits in bootcamp and served in the Bering Sea going places no other branch would go. His father was a captain in the army who served 3 tours in Vietnam and is buried in Arlington National Cemetary. They all served our country proudly. At the end of the day - the question remains- why consolidate? For what purpose? We still need those unique skills each branch provides.

Response by SSgt Douglas King made Jul 31 at 2018 8:11 PM

SSgt Douglas King — Tue, 31 Jul 2018 20:11:33 -0400

No. Each branch is different, and has different missions. As a proud disabled veteran from the U.S.A.F. I respect all branches of the Military, but the USMC is an awesome elite group of their own.

Response by SSgt Daniel d'Errico made Aug 1 at 2018 3:00 PM

SSgt Daniel d'Errico — Wed, 01 Aug 2018 15:00:46 -0400

ARMY, MARINES with some componets combined together? Could work. But think of the terminology barrier that has to be over come. USAF back under ARMY control. Not hardly. ARMY is geared towards massive manuver formations. And the last time AIR FORCE was under ARMY's control, there was too much confusion in communications. Unify communications between all branches of the military first. Then work on combining some componets of each service.

Response by Lt Col PAul Maxwell made Aug 1 at 2018 8:32 PM

Lt Col PAul Maxwell — Wed, 01 Aug 2018 20:32:59 -0400

probably not. too much culture, tradition, and similar but NOT matching missions, role, and many other elements.
HOWEVER, where possible, consolidation of function, support, etc is Quite effective, and cross over training and interaction should ideally results in betterment of both branches. FOR EXAMPLE... many of the Joint Forces Military bases bring many benefits.

Response by LCpl Stephen Sharp made Aug 4 at 2018 12:16 AM

LCpl Stephen Sharp — Sat, 04 Aug 2018 00:16:19 -0400

NO!!!!!! Nuff said

Response by LCpl Stephen Sharp made Aug 4 at 2018 12:16 AM

LCpl Stephen Sharp — Sat, 04 Aug 2018 00:16:52 -0400

NO!!!!!! NUFF SAID

Response by SPC Russell T. Andrews made Aug 6 at 2018 4:31 PM

SPC Russell T. Andrews — Mon, 06 Aug 2018 16:31:32 -0400

No! I mean no offense to the Marines but being tactical in other areas of technology such the Army is ,requires a pride in more than grunt work ,which ultimately saves lives and win battles...

Response by SPC Russell T. Andrews made Aug 6 at 2018 4:34 PM

SPC Russell T. Andrews — Mon, 06 Aug 2018 16:34:12 -0400

Marines and mythology go hand in hand!

Response by Cpl Susan Conyers made Aug 7 at 2018 2:26 PM

Cpl Susan Conyers — Tue, 07 Aug 2018 14:26:46 -0400

No, No, No....

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 8 at 2018 2:57 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 08 Aug 2018 14:57:06 -0400

No. Each branch of service has it's own particular mission and capabilities. I am a dual service Veteran (USMC 1995-2005, US Army 2009-2018). Marines are a completely different breed. During my time in the Army, I never encountered training for non-infantry Soldiers that equaled that of non-infantry Marines. (I'm not even going to debate Army Infantry vs. Marine Infantry, MARSOC vs SOF etc.) Everything from PFT / CFT to Weapons Qual was completely different. A vast majority of soldiers could not successfully engage a target with iron sites as do Marines at distances greater than 300 meters. Marines focus heavily on weapons training while the Army does not. Weapons Qual in the Army is done in roughly 2 days. 1 day for a PMI and the 2nd for zero and qualification. The Corps' Weapons Qualification is 5 to 6 days. 1 day for PMI and "snapping in," 2 days of practice, 1 day pre-qual and 1 day qualification. The extra day was for reflexive fire, multiple target drills, MOPP gear qual and a night fire. This is only ONE example of how both branches differ. The advantage to having The Marine Corps under Maritime Law is invaluable as landing Marines on foreign territory does not constitute an act of war. Consolidation would also be a huge financial and logistic debacle. Pride in earning the title of United States Marine alone is reason enough to consider this idea laughable.

Response by A1C Charles Fletcher made Aug 16 at 2018 10:53 AM

A1C Charles Fletcher — Thu, 16 Aug 2018 10:53:36 -0400

I was Air Force, I can see where consolidating for a mission would be worth it, but for the most part we all have different missions and different ways of operating, even within branches. I don't think consolidating branches would have any more benefits than just finding a better way to cut beurocratic bs.

Response by LCpl Michael Cappello made Aug 16 at 2018 8:30 PM

LCpl Michael Cappello — Thu, 16 Aug 2018 20:30:36 -0400

HELL NO !!! If the Army wants to join the Corps, they are welcome to do so. Marine Corps Recruit Training, (if you can) then advanced training, then whatever. There is a reason why NO MARINE will EVER have to go through any other boot camp in their lives. You do NOT get to become a Marine any other way. As for the Marines wanting to become the Army, why the hell would we? The Army needs heroes to admire too. Of course this had to be asked by a Squid. Thanks buddy. Stirring the soup again. The safest place in Korea was right behind a platoon of Marines. Lord, how they could fight!
MGen. Frank E. Lowe, USA; Korea, 26 January 1952 : Why in hell can't the Army do it if the Marines can. They are the same kind of men; why can't they be like Marines.
Gen. John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, USA; 12 February 1918 : We have two companies of Marines running rampant all over the northern half of this island, and three Army regiments pinned down in the southwestern corner, doing nothing. What the hell is going on?
Gen. John W. Vessey Jr., USA, Chairman of the the Joint Chiefs of Staff
during the assault on Grenada, 1983

Response by MAJ David Atkinson made Aug 16 at 2018 10:39 PM

MAJ David Atkinson — Thu, 16 Aug 2018 22:39:00 -0400

No. Marines (Navy) and Army have separate missions.

Response by TSgt Mark Espinosa made Aug 16 at 2018 10:55 PM

TSgt Mark Espinosa — Thu, 16 Aug 2018 22:55:30 -0400

I would take a Marine over an Solider any day to take care of business. Worked with soldiers and we in the USAF had to explain the cartoon books they used to instruct their soldiers.
Their officers can’t lead their troops where I was stationed in Germany. Nothing more to say

Response by 1SG James Matthews made Aug 19 at 2018 9:45 AM

1SG James Matthews — Sun, 19 Aug 2018 09:45:18 -0400

No--each has their own mission--we can work together in joint exercises when the need arises but leave each to it's own history and future.

Response by Sgt Jmeans M made Aug 20 at 2018 12:37 AM

Sgt Jmeans M — Mon, 20 Aug 2018 00:37:20 -0400

Fuck No!!!

Response by Sgt Trevor Wills made Aug 25 at 2018 11:37 AM

Sgt Trevor Wills — Sat, 25 Aug 2018 11:37:42 -0400

From as objective of the a stance as I can get I would have to say no to consolidation. Not just because of the pride we have as Marines and because we're already part of the Navy, but also we have a set mission statement that is completely different from the Army. A force in readiness, to be able to make an assault to anywhere in the world at a moment's notice. That is what makes the difference between the Army and the Marines, and why the Marines can never be consolidated with the Army.

Response by SSG Wm Johnson made Aug 26 at 2018 12:05 PM

SSG Wm Johnson — Sun, 26 Aug 2018 12:05:01 -0400

Having served in BOTH (USMC 65-72/USA 74-86) let offer a simple explanation of mission:
1. The Army's mission s to conduct CAMPAIGNS and WARS.
2. The Marines mission is to FIGHT BATTLES. 9oh and to protect the Navy from injuring itself...)
Anything else is just an outgrowth of those basic missions.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 27 at 2018 10:57 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 27 Aug 2018 22:57:34 -0400

I do not think integrating army and marines is a practical solution, traditions and esprit de corps aside.

There are some similarities in the sense of both having combat arms and support units but they fulfill different roles in their combined arms missions. First and foremost is the marines interoperability with naval operations and the ability to conduct amphibious operations with the navy. This has been touched on.

I would also add the marines are not well equipped for sustained land operations in the same way that the army is able or supposed to. The marines as a fighting force weren’t intended to hold territory for significant periods of time without naval or army support because they don’t have the same infrastructure, nor is it their job to do so. We forget that the way the marines were used during our current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan were not what they were really intended for - sustained land operations and holding Territory for lengthy periods of time. The army wasn’t intended to island hop in the way marines did during WWII and wouldn’t do a good job without significant other changes as well.

I think a better argument would be going back to a joint Air Force-army component, given that these branches tend to operate more interdependently to begin with. Again, this can be a source of debate as well.

Response by SSgt Tim Self made Sep 2 at 2018 9:55 PM

SSgt Tim Self — Sun, 02 Sep 2018 21:55:27 -0400

Just for the tension.

Response by SPC Roger Keiffer made Sep 3 at 2018 8:48 PM

SPC Roger Keiffer — Mon, 03 Sep 2018 20:48:45 -0400

When I wanted to serve our country, I first went to talk to the marine recruiter, He told me "We teach you to run towards enemy fire." Next day I asked the same questions to Army recruiter..he said"We teach you to shoot back at enemy fire"...I joined the Army!

Response by LCpl Jeffrey Ott made Sep 4 at 2018 8:52 PM

LCpl Jeffrey Ott — Tue, 04 Sep 2018 20:52:36 -0400

Heck no that’s an insult to all marines past or present

Response by LTC Martin Glynn made Sep 11 at 2018 4:47 PM

LTC Martin Glynn — Tue, 11 Sep 2018 16:47:39 -0400

Merge the Marines into the Army? While the Army did conduct more amphibious assaults than the Marine Corps during WWII, and while we Soldiers might finally get some better dress uniforms out of such a deal, it's still a really bad idea for one primary reason: as soon as some civilian bean-counters in DC saw that the Army was now up to 13 active duty combat divisions, they'd all scream, "That's too many! DRAWDOWN!"

Also, we'd have chaos in the Reserve Components, because the Army Reserve no longer has Combat Arms units. The 4th MARDIV would have to become part of the Army National Guard, so we'd then have the Governors of 50 States and 4 US Territories all duking it out over who gets to have amphibious troops in their State and Territorial defense forces ... whether they actually have coastlines or not ...

Response by LTC Stephan Porter made Sep 14 at 2018 12:00 AM

LTC Stephan Porter — Fri, 14 Sep 2018 00:00:38 -0400

Absolutely not!!!

You’d have to change Law to do it anyway!

Response by 2LT Charles L Harris Jr made Sep 14 at 2018 12:47 PM

2LT Charles L Harris Jr — Fri, 14 Sep 2018 12:47:24 -0400

Consolidation of forces appears to be a good idea and is cost effective. But other things must be considered; Each branch has enoormous pride and consolidation could affect the command and control and operational efficiency. It appears to me that as the Pentagon looks for way to cut cost without negativively impacting efficiency, consolidating of forces is something that could be phased in over a period of time. The Brass has already started with the consolidation of Forts and Bases.

Response by MAJ Jim Woods made Sep 17 at 2018 11:24 PM

MAJ Jim Woods — Mon, 17 Sep 2018 23:24:51 -0400

"God made Rangers so the Marines could have someone to look up to!" LOL

Response by SSG Randall Ford made Sep 21 at 2018 5:26 AM

SSG Randall Ford — Fri, 21 Sep 2018 05:26:40 -0400

Currebtly the corps comes under dept of Navy.. soldier and marines basically perfom like each other so why not. It would save big bucks on an unneeded upper echelon system providing fundings for troops and equipment for the missions performed instead of political bs. Same as by putting the Air Force with the Navy.all pilots should be able to take off and land on an aircraft carrier so you get more needed equipment and troops to perform the missions. No one wants to be the one cut and completely understood. However, funds and personnel can be put to better uses to support real training and missions for combat instead of rubbing political noses and back sides of the upper echelons to provide a life of luxery for those that need to actually be part of the military work force itself.give me a good marine with his rifle rather than a marine officer attending social functions anytime. Call it Army or Marine who cares, give me a well proficient and trained combat and security force any day

Response by SSG Ron Raade made Sep 23 at 2018 1:21 PM

SSG Ron Raade — Sun, 23 Sep 2018 13:21:31 -0400

I enlisted in the Marines in 1980 did four years.
1986-98 I was Army and Desert Storm..2005-11 Army Iraqi Freedom 05-06. So I can say honestly it won't work. Marine is a total being you are traditions and a level of pride normal humans can't grasp. The Army is a great organization, but in it's entirety it does not have the same level of pride and tradition. Not knocking it but a lot of units were pretty relaxed. I never regretted my switch because, I enjoyed all the oppurtunity and freedom to switch MOS the Army allowed.

Response by PO2 Richard Blakey made Sep 24 at 2018 12:05 PM

PO2 Richard Blakey — Mon, 24 Sep 2018 12:05:46 -0400

no at all usmc and usarmy

Response by Cpl Carlos Tombo made Sep 27 at 2018 8:05 AM

Cpl Carlos Tombo — Thu, 27 Sep 2018 08:05:32 -0400

I earned the EGA, we train for real world conflicts period!

Response by PO2 David Drummond made Sep 28 at 2018 7:47 AM

PO2 David Drummond — Fri, 28 Sep 2018 07:47:08 -0400

The only branch we don't need is Air Force. Since Navy and Marine pilots could do that mission. The reason we keep 4 branches is to show other countries we can mess them up 4 different ways

Response by LCpl Troy Gwyn made Oct 3 at 2018 5:46 PM

LCpl Troy Gwyn — Wed, 03 Oct 2018 17:46:23 -0400

This isn't the first time this question has been asked. And to me the answer should remain, no.
It boils down to service doctrine. It's inevitable that someone will point out the Normandy Invasion as an example of the Army's ability to perform an amphibious assault. But there will be no reference to the Marine Corps development of the amphibious assault or the necessary equipment the Corps came up with. Nor of the Corps training the Army command.
That all came into being because of the Marine Corps "assault doctrine". And we have seen recent benefits of that doctrine in the development of the Osprey. The other branches gave up on the Osprey years ago. The Corps stuck with it because of the obvious benefits within the "assault doctrine".
And as a result all of the branches will now share the benefits of the Marine Corps doctrine.

Response by Jose Cornejo made Oct 5 at 2018 3:53 PM

Jose Cornejo — Fri, 05 Oct 2018 15:53:56 -0400

To be honest: NO. Marines are Marines... not a branch of Navy, Army or whatever. despite the fact USMC depends of the Navy, They're a branch of their own.

Response by MSgt J D McKee made Oct 7 at 2018 3:00 PM

MSgt J D McKee — Sun, 07 Oct 2018 15:00:07 -0400

You can't really set camaraderie and traditions aside when camaraderie and tradition are much of what drive the USMC to success. I'm pretty sure the Corps is full of people who would literally rather die than disgrace it. Certainly rather to make any number of others die than be disgraced.

In my opinion. Completely from the outside of both.

Response by SGT Richard McArthur made Oct 7 at 2018 6:34 PM

SGT Richard McArthur — Sun, 07 Oct 2018 18:34:51 -0400

No.
As an ex-Army man (well, draftee, 18-month early out), I accept that the two services have, in certain respects, different functions (USMC amphibious landings and sea service functions). Different training, sometimes different equipment, is necessitated.
I think the USMC is best left a branch of the USN.

Response by PO3 David Fields made Oct 8 at 2018 12:31 AM

PO3 David Fields — Mon, 08 Oct 2018 00:31:47 -0400

I don't think the Army can operate with the Navy, the same way Marines can. Having a MEU forward deployed, with their ability to sustain operations for a prolonged period of time is unique.

Response by SSG Clarence Thomas made Oct 12 at 2018 12:29 AM

SSG Clarence Thomas — Fri, 12 Oct 2018 00:29:24 -0400

No. I got sea sick watching the ships in Panama

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 13 at 2018 9:48 AM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 13 Oct 2018 09:48:54 -0400

Nope. Marine Infantry (Infanteria de Marina) was created by Imperial Spain to fight and board British and Turkish vessels, and for close coastal action. That need still exists, even though US enemies are different. You can not wait for the US Army to send troops to help sailors battle one on one on impromptu actions either at sea or coast. Remember Bengazzi? Besides, Marines need their Army heros ... xD

Response by PO3 Benjamin Jordan made Oct 18 at 2018 1:59 PM

PO3 Benjamin Jordan — Thu, 18 Oct 2018 13:59:17 -0400

The Marines have always been a component of the Department of the Navy and there is no need to put them under the Department of the Army. Primarily because the Army would still have to have troops on board Navy ships. As it is both entities are under one department and makes for smoother operation. Having served in the Gator Navy along side of Marines, we are one big family and I for one don't want or see a need for the Marines to be taken from the Navy and given to a different branch of service that has slack standards when compared to the USMC. Leave it as it is.

Response by 1SG Michael Farrell made Oct 18 at 2018 3:42 PM

1SG Michael Farrell — Thu, 18 Oct 2018 15:42:25 -0400

We came to our services and stayed with them for a variety of reasons. Those reasons are led quite frankly, camaraderie and traditions. This pursuit of efficiency and cost savings at the cost of the intangible value that Dog Faced Soldiers and Fancy Pants Marines bring as identities, goals, aspirations are why we win battles when we shouldn't. The Marines do a better job at inculcating the camaraderie and traditions than the Army does and I personally regret that we miss that opportunity. But, there's no arguing with the reality that our services occupy niches -- including zoomies and swabbies as well -- and those niches are both inevitable in a global mission and role. This is not broken, so don't break it for a fix that might work in the civilian world.

Response by LCpl Frankie Rush made Oct 21 at 2018 10:51 PM

LCpl Frankie Rush — Sun, 21 Oct 2018 22:51:38 -0400

I will give just one example. Starting with the picture that they are showing. They can’t even get the same head gear. Question answered!!!!

Response by Capt Jeffrey Wall made Oct 22 at 2018 2:42 PM

Capt Jeffrey Wall — Mon, 22 Oct 2018 14:42:22 -0400

Good God No! I have 11 years in the Army and 13 years in the Marine Corps so I have had a foot in both worlds.. The 2 services are more different than similar. The Army focuses on fighting with large machines like tanks and Bradleys and Apaches and artillery. Again that's where the Army focuses. And their leadship methodology reflects that, machines first, people second. The Corps uses the same sorts of equipment but the orgaizational ethos is every Marine a rifleman. As a result, the Corps' emphasis is people first, machines second. If Private Dogface has a pay problem ins the Army he has to go on line and fix it himself - despite his potential lack of computer skills. In the Marine Corps, Private Leatherneck's First Sergeant sends him to the Battalion S1 and they fix it pronoto. Next, the Corps is much more flexible, it is used to task organizing and it does this well, largely because the infantry is the primary arm and everyone else supports them - and they know it. The same is far from true in the Army on all 3 points - they don't task organize well, the infantry is often not the principle arm or branch and no one in the armor branch or in the mech infantry wants to accept that they are in a supporting role. Finally, the Corps is far, far better at waging counterinsurgency campaigns and has a demonstrable successful history of it starting in the Banana Wars of the '20's and '30's through Vietnam and on to Afghanistan. Conversely, the Army HATES Counterinsurgency despite the fact it will be a major task for decades to come and has tried hard to turn every counterinsurgency campaign it has fought into a conventional war, with so far a 100% failure rate. - Afghanistan is only one example of several.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 23 at 2018 1:02 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 23 Oct 2018 13:02:47 -0400

As a former Corpsman, and a current Soldier, I have seen all 3 branches up close and personal. My answer would unequivocally would be no. Marines are proud because it’s an earned title, which made me proud to be a Corpsman. I don’t see that often in the Army, rarely do I hear Soldiers identity themselves as Soldiers. Most identify themselves as their MOS. In the civilian sector everyone under the DoD is a Soldier. Not the case in the military community. There would be backlash aplenty if these 2 forces ever merged.

Response by SFC Steven Raymond Thompson made Oct 24 at 2018 7:15 PM

SFC Steven Raymond Thompson — Wed, 24 Oct 2018 19:15:44 -0400

Every other day I see more and more Historical traditions scrapped for 'political correctness'/and personal agenda. USMC has the sea-to-land mission. USA is a ground and air to ground force. Leave each branch to do what they do BEST?

Response by LTC Larry Davis made Oct 25 at 2018 11:35 AM

LTC Larry Davis — Thu, 25 Oct 2018 11:35:01 -0400

No! Just because there appears to be a superficial similarity, don't think that the Army and Marines are the same; they aren't. You might as well suggest merging the Navy and Coast Guard since they both work in a maritime environment, but you'd be wrong there, too. Each service has a completely different internal structure and overall world mission that is quite different from that of the other services. True, there are specific missions or assignments where combat forces are almost merged, but even there, the unit integrity is maintained. I have worked with units of both Army and Marines, and there is no real comparison among them because of their specific mission, training, and internal structure. I have tremendous respect and trust for the Marines (except in a bar fight where I'd have to take sides), but I wouldn't put them above the Army. This is a situation where "separate, but equal" truly fits.

Response by SSG Dj Wight made Oct 25 at 2018 3:43 PM

SSG Dj Wight — Thu, 25 Oct 2018 15:43:24 -0400

Heck no we don't enough crayons in the Army to feed them not even for snacks! And besides since they WEREN'T part of the largest amphibious assault in the history of modern day warfare (D-Day) and no one swings on a rope from one ship to another to take it over haven't they outlived their mission? RLTW

Response by LtCol Paul Bowen made Oct 29 at 2018 12:58 AM

LtCol Paul Bowen — Mon, 29 Oct 2018 00:58:16 -0400

No Consolidation! Marines would not look good in Berets. The Army would not look as good in Marine Corps Dress Blues. Marines provide 34% of the mission assignments at 17% of the DoD budget...so the American Taxpayers would get less value for their money.

Response by CPO Nate S. made Oct 29 at 2018 7:58 AM

CPO Nate S. — Mon, 29 Oct 2018 07:58:46 -0400

As a retired US Navy Corpsman and "Marine DOC" - NO!!!

Response by Sgt Arthur Ball made Nov 1 at 2018 9:58 AM

Sgt Arthur Ball — Thu, 01 Nov 2018 09:58:03 -0400

Traditions and pride aside, I say no. Because the two branches despite their similarities contrast significantly in their overall role in completing objectives. Furthermore, in the technical aspects of mission achievement, the two branches also employ different strategic tactics and are specialized for specific missions that often require specialties each branch is groomed for. With that said, I think consolidation maybe most appropriate at the bureaucratic level.

Response by 1LT Leonard Edwards made Nov 1 at 2018 10:34 PM

1LT Leonard Edwards — Thu, 01 Nov 2018 22:34:47 -0400

No! Even if they did consolidate, there would still have to be separate training for each specialty You woud still have Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force, who prepare in their specialty. Each of us in our particular branch are proud of our accomplishments in battle and preparations. Each unit has it's area of expertise and should remain as is.

Response by CPO Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 7 at 2018 3:49 AM

CPO Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 07 Nov 2018 03:49:40 -0500

I’m Coast Guard and really don’t have a dog in this fight. That said, I’ve deployed to Afghanistan with Marines and with Army; both are outstanding but each brings its oun culture and methodology. We can adapt a portion of the Army do do the job of the Marines but then you create a subculture within the army that does amphibious assault exclusively. Why not just maintain a branch that already does that and does it really well.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 13 at 2018 6:56 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 13 Nov 2018 06:56:01 -0500

My opinion for what it is worth, we as service members all have a job and most are excellent at it. The Marines have there and Army there's. While both are similar. I served 31 years in the Army and have seen a lot of changes. Overall I don't see the Army having the discipline or standards that the Marines do. I know i will catch flak over that statement but oh well. Like the old saying goes " if it ain't broke don't fix it".

Response by CW2 William Jones made Nov 16 at 2018 7:43 PM

CW2 William Jones — Fri, 16 Nov 2018 19:43:58 -0500

The biggest difference between Army and the Marines is that the Army is a sustainment force whereas the Marines is for when it absolutely, positively, without a doubt has to be blown up overnight.

I have absolutely nothing against the Marines. I have several friends that have served honorably and are Marines. I am Retired Army. We each have our separate jobs and the Marine Corps maintain a very high standard. There is absolutely no reason the bring these two branches together. Sure we make fun of one another, but I have a huge amount of respect for them as well. They have time honored traditions just as we do. There just isn’t a valid reason to make one or both compromise their traditions to adapt to the others.

I’ll. Step off of the soapbox and let someone else chime in.

Response by PV2 Glen Lewis made Nov 17 at 2018 4:44 PM

PV2 Glen Lewis — Sat, 17 Nov 2018 16:44:58 -0500

The basic training would benefit from adopting the marine style but other than that they both already have their combat roles so I’d say leave them as is.

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 18 at 2018 10:18 AM

GySgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 18 Nov 2018 10:18:10 -0500

I will not say it will never happen. However, if it does, it won’t be in the way most think. Too many of you are looking at command redundancy and perceived operational overlap. Yep, there is merit there. But if you look from an overall combat readiness sense of the individual Marine and Soldier sense, that flies out the window. Every Marine is a rifleman and has to meet the minimum physical and mental requirement to meet the macro requirement. Put another way, i don’t think we would drop the overall standards to meet the Army, but increase the standards to meet the minimum of the Corps. Some would say the Marines would be rolled in like the SF. I doubt that. The Corps has a unique identity separate from the Army and, with all due respect, I do not believe most Americans would think this a good idea ..... that merging the two would dilute the effectiveness of the Marines. So if it were to happen, I think the purpose would be to help improve the Army overall.

Response by LT Mike Folker made Nov 30 at 2018 3:33 PM

LT Mike Folker — Fri, 30 Nov 2018 15:33:19 -0500

Would it help at all to recall that the Army tried for years--thru Congress--to simply eliminate the USMC? In the mid-1950s, after similar post-WWII & Korea skirmishes, senior Army & Marines took the fight to Congress but eventually agreed to some bilateral reorg. that ended the debate.

However, the whole sordid affair repulsed Pres. Eisenhower, & when it came time to name a new CMC, Eisenhower nominated Shoup, who had remained above the fray. Of course, then Eisenhower earned the enmity of more senior Marine generals, some of which resigned or retired in protest.

A reminder that 60-some yr ago, Army & Marine generals would have found that "one team, one fight" mantra laughable.

Response by LT Karl Shumaker made Nov 30 at 2018 5:40 PM

LT Karl Shumaker — Fri, 30 Nov 2018 17:40:49 -0500

Absolutely not! Read the Constitution. The Navy (therefore USMC) is mandated. The Army is not. In fact "no standing army longer than two years.

Response by SSG Chris Allsopp made Dec 3 at 2018 4:59 AM

SSG Chris Allsopp — Mon, 03 Dec 2018 04:59:19 -0500

As an Army vet, I have to say no. While jar heads may seem like they do the same thing as infantry in the army. There's a whole different scheme in place. The navy needs a land and security force in place. Marines do that. Army can't get there without the navy, or her marines.

Response by LT Bill Teasdale made Dec 4 at 2018 5:46 PM

LT Bill Teasdale — Tue, 04 Dec 2018 17:46:09 -0500

The answer, I think, is to let the components do what they were designed for. USMC is the nations QRF, and the Army is designed for sustained campaigns. The Navy and Air Force are designed to get everyone there, and provide the air support to the ground components in combat. (USMC air and Army rotory wing notwithstanding) The special ops communities already operate in a fairly joint fashion, so have almost become a separate branch. I don't think any consolidation that removes an entire component will do anything to increase efficiency.

Response by GySgt Richard Morrison made Dec 5 at 2018 12:44 AM

GySgt Richard Morrison — Wed, 05 Dec 2018 00:44:16 -0500

I served along side the U.S. Army at the USDB, Ft. Leavenworth, KS and they had to come to us for help on them celebrating the Army's Birthday. WTFO! It was like they never had.

Response by SSG Everett Wilson made Dec 8 at 2018 1:25 AM

SSG Everett Wilson — Sat, 08 Dec 2018 01:25:31 -0500

No. We all have our own history, our own traditions. The Army and the Marines have our own missions. If I were to tell my uncle-a Frozen Chosen Marine that they wanted to combine the Army and Marines together, he would be one of the first to be in that charge upon Capital Hill.

Response by Lt Col John Culley made Dec 9 at 2018 8:22 PM

Lt Col John Culley — Sun, 09 Dec 2018 20:22:33 -0500

To ensure than air power is properly used strategically it would be better to consolidate the Army, Navy and Marine air forces with the existing United States Air Force. After this consolidation the President could select from these pilots and air crews those qualified for his new Space Corps.

Response by Sgt Steve Williams made Dec 10 at 2018 4:47 PM

Sgt Steve Williams — Mon, 10 Dec 2018 16:47:10 -0500

This consolidation discussion points our what I see as a real problem in Washington, D.C. The White House, Congress, and the judiciary are almost exclusively folks that have never served. They have no idea of the importance of tradition and pride in your branch. I will always be proud I am a Marine. I would expect old folks like me (70 years old) from the other branches would also be proud of their branch. This would be 100 time more difficult that the most complicated private sector merger. We would go through a lengthy period where we would no ability to do anything other than argue over turf and positions.

Response by SGT Tomas Husted made Dec 10 at 2018 11:52 PM

SGT Tomas Husted — Mon, 10 Dec 2018 23:52:51 -0500

While In the Army we were told learn the job of the man below you in rank. And to learn the job of the man above you in rank. Well I believe that the Army and the Marines should integrate,sort of like learning the ranks, exchange service members by MOS or near match MOS's. So many Marines go to the Army, and the Army fills the Marines ranks. Let each service learn the Army/Marine aspect of training and job duties, barracks life. Are there operational difference's. Can the services actually learn from each other? I believe they could. Can they live by the Army reg's with Marine reg's added? It will/would be as they used to say "GOOD TRAINING"
This so called traing should last about 3 months. I guarantee changes would be very evident.Just maybe the Army will "earn" some respect from the Marines.

Response by MSG Brad Hansen made Dec 12 at 2018 5:10 PM

MSG Brad Hansen — Wed, 12 Dec 2018 17:10:31 -0500

All of the Armed Forces are combined in 1 group. DOD. And in the group there are special departments asked to prepare for a specific missions. Net question.

Response by 1SG James Kelly made Dec 13 at 2018 2:30 PM

1SG James Kelly — Thu, 13 Dec 2018 14:30:40 -0500

No, the Army couldn't handle it.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 14 at 2018 11:49 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 14 Dec 2018 11:49:53 -0500

Having 2 services thinking about similar problems is helpful, I think.

Response by GySgt Ed Poe made Dec 15 at 2018 7:07 PM

GySgt Ed Poe — Sat, 15 Dec 2018 19:07:57 -0500

See if I have this right. Your saying to combine The Army and the Marine Corps. They have different missions and traditions. In the air on land and sea.
Nice try it will never work.
Gunny

Response by Cpl James Campbell made Dec 21 at 2018 1:23 PM

Cpl James Campbell — Fri, 21 Dec 2018 13:23:42 -0500

So first off, small disclaimer. I am a Marine and very proud of it. I seen comments of not looking at things in an analytical way and only in an emotional way.

So lets take a look. To start lets rake a look at initial deployment capability. While the Army is gearing up and waiting for congress to stop argueing to authorize everything. The Marine Corps is already there, simply because our orders come directly from the president and he can have us anywhere 90 days at a time without congressional approval.

While the above is possible here is something else to think about. If any happens on our own soil. The Army xan be used and not the Marine Corps. This is because the difference in roles we face. The Army is more security and peace keeping whkle the Marine Corps is an assult force.

Another point that was brought up was the Marine Corps Amphibious operations. No offense to the Army they are still learning about those tactics snd they dont fully understand them. As it has been mentioned by many people, Marines are tied to the Navy and have that water born background.

As far as speed of deployement, if you really think the Army as a whole can deloy faster you need to re evaluate things. The Marine Corps as a whole is designed for rapid deployement.

Now the emotional ties to the Marine Corp. Just remember no one puts the fear of good into an enemy like the Marine Corps, its simple look at our history right down to our nickname.

Maybe one day the Army will be able to live to ours standards but doubtfull.

We all have our places and our roles. The simplest way tk stop the break down is tell the brass to stop measuring because none of them gave it.

Response by 1SG Don Jones made Jan 1 at 2019 2:53 PM

1SG Don Jones — Tue, 01 Jan 2019 14:53:51 -0500

oh hell no

Response by PO1 Don Mac Intyre made Jan 3 at 2019 12:26 PM

PO1 Don Mac Intyre — Thu, 03 Jan 2019 12:26:10 -0500

Who, in all seriousness, asks these questions? They just dont seem legit.

Response by Cpl Edward Conley made Jan 3 at 2019 1:35 PM

Cpl Edward Conley — Thu, 03 Jan 2019 13:35:00 -0500

Not just no, hell no!!!
Two different missions, two different traditions, totally different branches.
Combine the Army with the Airforce if it is so necessary.

Response by Lt Col George Roll made Jan 4 at 2019 10:42 AM

Lt Col George Roll — Fri, 04 Jan 2019 10:42:12 -0500

No the Army is our ground force. It has heavy artillary tank (armored) divisions, an Airborne Division etc. The USMC is naval amphibious oriented smaller force. It's orientation is Naval Infantry. It's support Air, Artillary are organic to support of their mission. The USMC assiciation with the Navy is essential to the smooth functioning of both. In that respect it is unique and seperate from the Army and it's mission.

Response by PO1 Mike Meehan made Jan 4 at 2019 11:04 AM

PO1 Mike Meehan — Fri, 04 Jan 2019 11:04:00 -0500

Camaraderie and traditions aside, we should have a single Defense Force as Canada does to minimize beauracracy and redundancy. We should have a single aviation directorate to manage all aircraft issues, shipboard or land based, etc.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2019 11:20 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 04 Jan 2019 11:20:42 -0500

Tactically I believe this would be a good move. With the combined budgets of both branches, we could outfit most everyone with better weapons systems and probably still have funds left over for better training and extra equipment. Make a new MOS and/or skill identifier for Amphibious Infantry, and combine all the non-combat MOS individuals. I'm not privy to all the planning that it would require, but the only issue I could see with it is the Marines trying to get over themselves.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2019 11:36 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 04 Jan 2019 11:36:20 -0500

Marines wear MARINE patches...
Army wears ARMY patches...
Navy wears NAVY ribbons...
Air Force wears AIRFORCE ribbons!!
I find some of these comments extremely RUDE and disrespectful! I'm a CORPS brat, ARMY mom and NAVY wife. Shame on ya'll for being soo disrespectful with your finger pointing and accusational opinions. I'm not talking down ANY branch, but DAMN YOU who do!!

Response by PO3 John Merrick made Jan 4 at 2019 11:36 AM

PO3 John Merrick — Fri, 04 Jan 2019 11:36:46 -0500

As the Marines are already integrated into the Dept. Of the Navy wouldn't this be kind of stupid move? The Marines are generally the tip of the spear in force projection. When Marine units are deployed on amphibious ships they are ready to go the moment the ship pulls away from the dock. So there is always units ready for action. I am not taking anything from the Army. But they do two different roles.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2019 11:38 AM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 04 Jan 2019 11:38:01 -0500

I don't think this would be practical. One of the main things that sets the Marine Corps apart from the Army is global readiness. Being a department of the Navy, Marines can be anywhere in a matter of hours. Also, given the Marine Corps' offensive-in-nature overall mission, vice the Army's defensive one, to meld the two together wouldn't make sense. Yes, they have a lot in common as far as ground combat goes, but I don't think the two branches are quite as similar as you think they are.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2019 11:47 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 04 Jan 2019 11:47:15 -0500

“I eArNeD mY eGa” yeah we get it bro we all went to basic too. Lmao

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2019 12:09 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 04 Jan 2019 12:09:18 -0500

No way! The Marine Corps has a unique role. No regiment in the Army is organized like a Marine regiment. Is one better than the other? Heck yeah...at different jobs. Hammers are better at hammering than screwdrivers, but you need a screwdriver for some jobs too.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2019 12:19 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 04 Jan 2019 12:19:15 -0500

I think maybe you’re underestimating the extent to which camaraderie, pride, and distinction matter in regards to morale and combat effectiveness. Also I think this is an example of a “if it’s not broken don’t fix it.” They have some differences after all, being that the marines are more sea and beach oriented than The Army. And mass consolidation can lead an even more top down approach, creating more bureaucracy and communication breakdowns. I think it’s best the way it is.

Response by GySgt Lap Yan made Jan 4 at 2019 12:21 PM

GySgt Lap Yan — Fri, 04 Jan 2019 12:21:58 -0500

As general Brute krulak so eloquently put in his book "first to fight". We don't need the marine corps but the american public demands that we have a marine corps. After each war there are attempts to eliminate the corps and we always survive because the american public demand that there be a force ready to keep the barbarians at the gates.

Response by SPC Tom Crockett Sr. made Jan 4 at 2019 12:23 PM

SPC Tom Crockett Sr. — Fri, 04 Jan 2019 12:23:37 -0500

I think that there are many areas the 2 forces could indeed combine

Response by SGT Chris Flint made Jan 4 at 2019 12:29 PM

SGT Chris Flint — Fri, 04 Jan 2019 12:29:33 -0500

you can’t combine the two for cost saving or expiedent because the two are not comparable
They are a separate service and have been for a couple of hundred years. History, heraldry. Traditions aren’t meant to be combined.
Marines don’t like to be called soldiers and vice versa.but when required we were on same page we got it done

Response by SFC Carlos Cruz made Jan 4 at 2019 1:15 PM

SFC Carlos Cruz — Fri, 04 Jan 2019 13:15:58 -0500

No, who can think

Response by SFC Carlos Cruz made Jan 4 at 2019 1:16 PM

SFC Carlos Cruz — Fri, 04 Jan 2019 13:16:46 -0500

No, who can think

Response by SFC Carlos Cruz made Jan 4 at 2019 1:17 PM

SFC Carlos Cruz — Fri, 04 Jan 2019 13:17:35 -0500

No, who can think like that in the first place.
Marines had fought in every war separately as a small Element, storm beach & Earned their respect with all branches regardless how we feel about them.
We must never allow to join as one due to what they do.
My branch is disgusting themself as a multi unit.
We have Paratrooper, Diverse demolition transportation so many that we are a bigger army for that reason.

We can do with our join forces.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2019 1:43 PM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 04 Jan 2019 13:43:29 -0500

Consolidate? Currently we have an Army Air Force, Navy Air Force, Coast Guard Air Force, National Guard Air Force, and Air Force Air Force. Last time I checked they all have one thing in common. Start with them.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2019 1:44 PM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 04 Jan 2019 13:44:50 -0500

I included the Marine Air Force with the Navy Air Force.

Response by Pvt Robert L. Lamoreaux made Jan 4 at 2019 2:20 PM

Pvt Robert L. Lamoreaux — Fri, 04 Jan 2019 14:20:48 -0500

I am commenting from a position of insufficient information (ignorance) and, even worse, what might be half-truths. Consolidation may have good economic or budgetary outcomes,but I am not sure about even that!
Notwithstanding tradition, pride, etc., I think - from the point of view of an outsider - that differences in tactical doctrine (and related support) have to be considered. My understanding is that a few years ago the Army wanted to absorb Air Force A-10 units, supposedly because they flew in a CAS role and developing tactical doctrine (the role of infantry/armor, attack helicopters, and A-10 type aircraft) would be more efficient "intra-service" rather than "inter-service". One problem I can visualize with this is there is a very human frailty to look with suspicion on something (equipment, training, tactics, doctrine) that is "not invented here". (NIH! CAN'T work!) I am somewhat prejudiced, being indoctrinated into the Marine Corps Green cult. Each branch of the armed forces have something unique to contribute and some of that contribution is the result of a combination of cooperation and competition.
If I am in error in my recollections (notably about the A-10 "rivalry") I'd welcome being corrected.

Response by PFC Ronald Watkins made Jan 4 at 2019 2:54 PM

PFC Ronald Watkins — Fri, 04 Jan 2019 14:54:59 -0500

When it comes to the basic training of the Army and the boot camp of the Marines there are significant differences in toughness training. The Army has removed so much of the hardcore physical training as well as the psychological toughness training that they would have to play catch up. I served in the army and am proud of the service, however, I have 2 sons in the Marines and 1 in the Army. The differences are greater than people think. If you combine forces of any of the 2 branches then the Army and Airforce would be the most likely branches since the Army started the Airforce.

Response by SSG Martin Petersen made Jan 4 at 2019 3:11 PM

SSG Martin Petersen — Fri, 04 Jan 2019 15:11:29 -0500

I don’t see a benefit in the Army absorbing the Marines.

Response by PO1 James Perry made Jan 4 at 2019 4:08 PM

PO1 James Perry — Fri, 04 Jan 2019 16:08:43 -0500

Leave thing alone we all have a place in the defence of our country

Response by SFC Charlie Broadus II made Jan 4 at 2019 4:57 PM

SFC Charlie Broadus II — Fri, 04 Jan 2019 16:57:01 -0500

Quick answer no, each serves there own purpose

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2019 5:09 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 04 Jan 2019 17:09:01 -0500

Let’s put the day and night together.

Response by GySgt Keith Rininger made Jan 4 at 2019 5:43 PM

GySgt Keith Rininger — Fri, 04 Jan 2019 17:43:08 -0500

Oh Hell No. No disrespect, however I knew many Soldiers in the Army that would not have been able to handle Marine Corps Boot Camp, or the Marines in general as a career. We who are Marines ( YES, a Marine for life ) are proud of earning that title. I feel one needs not just the physical tools to be a Marine, but the HEART to be a Marine, and while many soldiers may be very good, they are NOT Marines. Semper Fi to my fellow Marines, you EARNED the title. And to those in the other branches, be proud and do your very best as the Country depends on you...but your not a Marine.

Response by LCpl Richard Mohr made Jan 4 at 2019 6:35 PM

LCpl Richard Mohr — Fri, 04 Jan 2019 18:35:03 -0500

Stay separated both have their own jobs to do. An yes we do work well together. But that being said I as a Marine that has a lot of friends and family in the military. Will have to say that the Marines is a way of life and thinking. Compared to a lot of the other branches that I know people from a lot of them just kind of drop the pride they had when the contract is up.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2019 6:48 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 04 Jan 2019 18:48:20 -0500

Personally, Marines go back to Navy and Air Force go back to Army. Both have infantry, both have air support, one is sea based the other land.

Response by MAJ Mark Anderson made Jan 4 at 2019 6:50 PM

MAJ Mark Anderson — Fri, 04 Jan 2019 18:50:31 -0500

When we were working a Joint Experiment, the Marine task was to fight and win the nation's battles and the Army task was to fight and win the nation's campaigns. It works.

Response by SSG Jack Lewis made Jan 4 at 2019 7:14 PM

SSG Jack Lewis — Fri, 04 Jan 2019 19:14:24 -0500

Yep. Consolidate ALL the services, preserve traditions with subgroup training and lineage history (if Cav can do it, so can the Corps), enhance interoperability at one stroke, and fire at least two thirds of flag officers across the sub-branches of U.S. armed forces.

While we're at it, it's time to rename the whole command pyramid by its accurate and traditional moniker: the Department of War.

Response by Cpl Bill Johnson made Jan 4 at 2019 7:35 PM

Cpl Bill Johnson — Fri, 04 Jan 2019 19:35:25 -0500

Someone please make this nonsensical thread go away. The answer is clearly no.

Response by SSG Michael Johnson made Jan 4 at 2019 7:41 PM

SSG Michael Johnson — Fri, 04 Jan 2019 19:41:28 -0500

No actually the Marine Corps should be done away with all together. The US. Army is the most Elite force/Branch in the military hands down. And can handle any and every mission that we are given. The Army is all inclusive and organic within its self. The Army Has Rangers,Special Forces(SF), Delta Force Airborne School, Halo School and the list goes on. When the Army is called on the Army delivers. The Army is the first in and last out. The Army will go in and invade and then sustain indefinitely. The Marines don’t do that. No matter if Marines mission is different. If they are going to talk the talk they better walk the walk! Also most if not all other branch’s have been subordinate to the US. Army at sometime in history. Other branches piggy back off of the Army. Especially the Marines whether it be MOS schools or Using Army ranges/Resources etc. So really what’s the point of keeping the Marine Corps?

Response by LCpl Jeff Moore made Jan 4 at 2019 8:00 PM

LCpl Jeff Moore — Fri, 04 Jan 2019 20:00:37 -0500

Just not No, but No Fucking way in hell.
Should Navy seals and army green berets combine?

We have a different mindset, our pigs are like the army grunts, our grunts are equal if not better then the rangers.

What you should be asking is why the Marines are such a bad ass fighting force when compared to the Army.

ALL marines go though the same boot camp, then go to their Mos school. The army should have a combine boot camp where all cooks, supply clerks, grunts etc train together. Then they report to their basic school.

You duck head idea will not solve communicate issue, it will not save money. But it will cost money and be a waste of time.

Marine infantry is train to be jack of all trades, you can take a company and have it fight in a jungle, arctic, island hopping, mountain environment. While in the army you have the opposite.

Look at the combat record of the Marines compared to the army from WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the gulf and now. We have always kicked ass and taken names.

There was the joke that the marines take a hill, give it to the army to defend, only to have to retake it when the army gives it up.

Response by CPL Ulysses Aburto made Jan 4 at 2019 8:04 PM

CPL Ulysses Aburto — Fri, 04 Jan 2019 20:04:43 -0500

We only need two branches......Fleet and Mobile infantry.....and while we are at this, lets make Jonny Rico the next Sky Marshall.

Response by CW5 Randall Hirsch made Jan 4 at 2019 8:35 PM

CW5 Randall Hirsch — Fri, 04 Jan 2019 20:35:17 -0500

No, absolutely not!

Response by CPO Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2019 8:37 PM

CPO Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 04 Jan 2019 20:37:10 -0500

My opinion is absolutely not. People, who advocate a merger of Army and Marine Corps, are proving themselves ignorant of the expeditionary nature of the Corps. The Marine Corps is rightfully one of the three sea services and an integral part of the Navy. The Army is designed for a different role whereas the Marines are there to get in, do the job and move on. I consider Marines to be shipmates just as much as I do my fellow Sailors.

Response by CPT Derial Bivens made Jan 4 at 2019 9:16 PM

CPT Derial Bivens — Fri, 04 Jan 2019 21:16:27 -0500

The comments I have read make the same points I have heard argued back and forth for the least 40 years. There was one that I saw that caught my attention, however. It concerned consolidating certain things under DoD. Certainly family housing, exchanges, commissaries - quality of life amenities would be more consistent (and probably better) if consolidated under DoD. In the immortal words of Forrest, Forrest Gump, "that's all I have to say about that."
Now to the original question. Should the Army and Marine Corps merge? My answer is akm emphatic "No"! The Marines being up under the Navy gives our war-fighting capabilities incredible flexibility. I could, but won't bother to, expound on some of those ways. Just think in terms of flexibility.

Response by SN Jay Perry made Jan 4 at 2019 9:20 PM

SN Jay Perry — Fri, 04 Jan 2019 21:20:39 -0500

The day I see a United States Marine wearing one of those cow pie hats... something needs to change. The Marines and army serve two different functions and have for over two centuries.

Response by SSG Erik McKinster made Jan 4 at 2019 11:25 PM

SSG Erik McKinster — Fri, 04 Jan 2019 23:25:13 -0500

I’ve served in both the corps & the army... just no.

Response by Cpl Jim Lee made Jan 5 at 2019 12:52 AM

Cpl Jim Lee — Sat, 05 Jan 2019 00:52:19 -0500

If you’re not a Marine, you don’t get it.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 5 at 2019 3:02 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 05 Jan 2019 03:02:33 -0500

All things aside I can see the benefit of the Army adapting the USMC 13 Man Infantry Squad.

Response by HA Jace Gallagher made Jan 5 at 2019 7:56 AM

HA Jace Gallagher — Sat, 05 Jan 2019 07:56:31 -0500

This would not necessarily be reasonable. Yes the Army and Marines do perform similar missions, but the differences the Marines bring and the interactions they have with the Navy means that the soldiers would have to endure a crazy length bootcamp of a bare minimum of 20 weeks to successfully retain all the info needed. Also Marines operate in smaller numbers than the Army. Those numbers make a huge difference when deciding strategy in war. However, I do believe all the special forces/special warfare units of every branch should have at least a small bit of training in the tactics of the other branches.

Response by 1SG Ernest Stull made Jan 5 at 2019 8:01 AM

1SG Ernest Stull — Sat, 05 Jan 2019 08:01:37 -0500

I am a retired NCO who has on occasion worked wit the Marines and I respect them with all my heart, but from a logistics point of view and a money saving I must say the cost of having to different Armies and three different Air Forces should we no consolidate at least the Army and Marines into one. The Marines could be a special unit like the Rangers and used for their expertise in beach landings and other waterborne operations. Why does the Marines need their own aircraft wing when they come under the Navy but the Navy does not support the Marines and the Marines have their own budget. My point is incorporate the Marines into the Army and their Air wing into the AF. The savings alone would be billions in tax payer dollars. As for the Navy make them do their job of transporting us to and from battlefields and fighting on the high seas. And with all that lets do away with all the different Special Operation forces and combine them under one umbrella just like the Special Forces and let the Special Forces go back to doing their Mission. I am by the way a Soldier that has a well rounded Military background.

Response by Cpl James Wurn made Jan 5 at 2019 8:06 AM

Cpl James Wurn — Sat, 05 Jan 2019 08:06:21 -0500

NO WHAT WOULD THE UNIT BE CALLED ARMARINESOR MARMY

Response by GySgt Jon White made Jan 5 at 2019 8:23 AM

GySgt Jon White — Sat, 05 Jan 2019 08:23:22 -0500

Dear Lord, they're after us again. Why is it, since our founding, some son of a bitch, usually in an Army uniform, but sometimes Navy, has been trying to "absorb us", or out and out get rid of us?

Response by PVT Mark Zehner made Jan 5 at 2019 8:52 AM

PVT Mark Zehner — Sat, 05 Jan 2019 08:52:33 -0500

Anything the Marines can do the Army has done. In World War 2 the Army fought in every theater there was! That being said the Marines believe in the mystique of being a Marine and would be a giant mistake!

Response by SSG Mark DeTillion made Jan 5 at 2019 10:20 AM

SSG Mark DeTillion — Sat, 05 Jan 2019 10:20:10 -0500

A Marines mission encompass so much more than what is seen on TV or other media. Barracks and embassy duties. Naval sea duties. As Army retired and a Marine Corps veteran I have learned a lot about both. The skill sets are not identical. Leave my Marine Corps alone.

Response by SPC John Bush made Jan 5 at 2019 11:52 AM

SPC John Bush — Sat, 05 Jan 2019 11:52:44 -0500

No, they all serve a different purpose through different means and methods. Old adage, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.

Response by MAJ Daniel Flynn made Jan 5 at 2019 12:36 PM

MAJ Daniel Flynn — Sat, 05 Jan 2019 12:36:40 -0500

The Army believes in quiet professionalism at its higher trained levels, and we carry more than one ball.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 5 at 2019 12:43 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 05 Jan 2019 12:43:34 -0500

If there’s going to be talk about rolling the Corps into another branch the army shouldn’t be on the table. If it were to happen, Marines should be brought back to their Navy roots. Make the Marines more combat oriented with less administrative MOS’s and roll those jobs over to the navy with the Marines taking care of only combat or direct support positions (arty, engineers, etc.)

Response by LCDR Tim McKenzie made Jan 5 at 2019 1:06 PM

LCDR Tim McKenzie — Sat, 05 Jan 2019 13:06:10 -0500

Actually a US military with air, land and sea components could be more efficient (Russians, Germans and Israelis). Those nations often refer to specific components as Air Force or Army, but they are actually components of a single military.

Response by PFC Randy Harrington made Jan 5 at 2019 1:29 PM

PFC Randy Harrington — Sat, 05 Jan 2019 13:29:15 -0500

No but not for the reasons stated
1) Orginally we had the army/Army air corps then the Marines sprung forth out of the navy due to the requirements of battle .
2)The Marine Corps is a specialty branch they are the embodiment of precession cross utilization. They are capable of working along side any of the other branches in a way that works as a force multiplier . The army can’t work with the navy as is and the Air Force isn’t really equipped to work with the navy or army on a wide scale basis . Look at just the training requirements and you’ll see Marines are more like special forces than regular infantry . Notice when people say can the army do it and yes the u it’s they say do it already are special forces units .
2) The Marines belong to the president by congressional act which means he can move a large number of people and equipment quickly anywhere without getting into the red tape and quagmire of congressional advise and consent which buys us more time to plan and to move the larger forces into an area
What we should do is have separate branches as currently stated but increase the amount of personnel from each that are sent on TDY to joint operations.
Increase the size of the USMC to 600,000 taking the additional 100,000 and adding them to joint operations .

Response by SSgt Ron Hazel made Jan 5 at 2019 1:32 PM

SSgt Ron Hazel — Sat, 05 Jan 2019 13:32:37 -0500

On the surface the Army and USMC have very similar missions but scratch that away and they have very different missions and cultures. Yes at small unit level they are interchangeable in most missions but it’s the heavy hitting of the Army’s armor units and the light rapid global response of the USMC MEU’s that makes each branch distinctive. The USMC does not have the heavy sustained punch needed to fight a mechanized conflict, nor do most army units have the light flexibility to respond as rapidly as the USMC can. Both branches serve a distinct mission and both are needed separately. And no just because the USN has the 2nd largest Air Force in the world does not make the air elements interchangeable any more than the Army and Marines. The USAF offers heavy lift, long haul refueling, recononosince, theater control, heavy bombers and logistical support that the Navy cannot, and a Cartier battle group offers the of your coast force projection that land based aircraft could never do. Both compliment each other but one cannot take over the others missions beacuse of how they are structured. Let the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines stand as the individuals on the same team that they are.

Response by Sgt Brad McCaslin made Jan 5 at 2019 3:47 PM

Sgt Brad McCaslin — Sat, 05 Jan 2019 15:47:12 -0500

After reading the comments I find it funny that everyone assumes that if this were to happen that the army would somehow absorb the Marine Corps. Never happens. Marines could however absorb, retrain, and bring up to par the army. Along with a much larger budget.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 5 at 2019 4:08 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 05 Jan 2019 16:08:01 -0500

It's logical to combine them. The Army has a ranger regiment that has basically the same motivation, pride, tradition, and achieves the same combat readiness that the Marines do. They just have a different mission set. Establishing a "Marine Regiment" within the Army to carry on their established tradition and mission set of amphibious assaults really wouldn't take away from what the Marine Corps is. It may even make it stronger as they would fall under the Army administratively and logistically. The Marines might actually get fielded new issue equipment rather than the hand me downs from the Army that they currently get.

Response by CPT Linzie Brim made Jan 5 at 2019 4:18 PM

CPT Linzie Brim — Sat, 05 Jan 2019 16:18:55 -0500

Leathernecks have always been different than the Army. The training and lifestyle is different. Just like the Navy's Air Corps is different than the Air Force. So are the differences between the Marines and the Army. If the Congress really wanted to save money. Stop funding programs for illegal residents and deport them, and only send support to nation's that openly support the United States of America. While we are discussing duplicates...NSA and CIA. And why does FEMA need to their own clandestine organization? Just wondering...

Response by SSG Greg Miech made Jan 5 at 2019 4:28 PM

SSG Greg Miech — Sat, 05 Jan 2019 16:28:57 -0500

The combining of armed forces is just no going to happen. It seems the roles have been expanded a bit that each have the same missions parameters. What they should do is combine some of the basic material requirements, vehicles and training facilities. I think it is a bit redundant to have a Navy and Marine Aviation when they can be made into one. They both train for ground support and aerial conflicts. Air Force is too diversified for the missions it are tasked for.

Response by LCpl Jason Keiser made Jan 5 at 2019 4:33 PM

LCpl Jason Keiser — Sat, 05 Jan 2019 16:33:27 -0500

This will never happen.

Response by Cpl MItty Megonigle made Jan 5 at 2019 4:42 PM

Cpl MItty Megonigle — Sat, 05 Jan 2019 16:42:51 -0500

Whi come up with this dumbass Idea? Leave the shit the way it is.

Response by Capt Daniel Goodman made Jan 5 at 2019 4:50 PM

Capt Daniel Goodman — Sat, 05 Jan 2019 16:50:17 -0500

I'd obviously run across such a thought numerous times before...there's certainly logic to it, if only from the standpoint that, at least for the whole amphibious-landing aspect, maybe both should be interchangeable integrated, while maintaining distinct character, if only for sake of tradition, as well as morale combined with esprit de corps, that's my only point...interestingly, when I'd been doing military history in Army ROTC before going USAF OTS, the PMS of the ROTC program I'd been in, which no longer exists, had said that the first "major" U.S. amphibious landing had actually been done principally by Army, at least from what I'd gathered he'd mentioned, during the Mexican War, which I certainly found interesting...as he'd explained that aspect, I always found myself wondering, though I hadn't asked him at that specific moment, whether USMC had also been involved...I'd expect it would've been, by all means, I would think that would certainly have been anticipated...clearly, not having been USMC or active Army, those are just thoughts on my part, by all means, however, I've always found that a most interesting question...there've been all sorts of such interopability questions in the past, most notably sticking B-25 bombers under Doolittle and Halsey on the Hornet for the Japan raid, or, more recently, Pres. Carter having insisted on using Army helicopters on a carrier during the whole Teheran, Iran raid, during the whole hostage thing, which, when he'd suggested it, I'd once read he apparently got more than a few kind of wide-eyed stares, however, as I'd also read, he'd evidently insisted, which, certainly, I found a quite creative concept, given the apparent reaction he'd gotten at the time, obviously...as I'd said, those were just some thoughts that had occurred to me...I'd be curious whether Naval Inst. proceedings has had articles dealing with that whole topic, I'd expect it must certainly have arisen in print before elsewhere, you know? If any of you have any thoughts, I'd certainly be interested, that was a quite good question....

Response by Capt Daniel Goodman made Jan 5 at 2019 4:53 PM

Capt Daniel Goodman — Sat, 05 Jan 2019 16:53:37 -0500

Then, too, just as another thought, I'd obviously also read about Army Combatives and MCMAP training, I've often wondered why those don't consolidate either, or, at minimum, be required to be integrated, each with the other, I mean, martial arts are martial arts, one would logically think that both programs should certainly benefit from having, say, alternating heads between Army and USMC, I don't know who'd go first, flip a coin, I suppose, you know? As I'd said, just another observation I'd given some reflection to, you know?

Response by LCpl Vincent Gagliardi made Jan 5 at 2019 5:42 PM

LCpl Vincent Gagliardi — Sat, 05 Jan 2019 17:42:48 -0500

NO WAY, NO HOW. WE'RE MARINES, PERIOD. A BREED UNTO OURSELVES.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 5 at 2019 5:57 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 05 Jan 2019 17:57:41 -0500

I was 11B and proud of my blue cord. God bless Chesty Puller and the Marine Corps! They ARE the experts on amphibious operations and kicking in the door. They establish the beachhead as an expeditionary force and allow the Army to come in and expand on their breach. The Marines do an excellent job when they are required to stay in place, but their intent is to open the door, not to occupy.

Response by Cpl Scot Jackson made Jan 5 at 2019 6:11 PM

Cpl Scot Jackson — Sat, 05 Jan 2019 18:11:13 -0500

Not even close. The Army has some squared away units and I’ll freely say that with pride but if you think the big green machine could one hundred percent adhere to Marine Corps standards your practically looking to reduce its size by one half. So if your objective is to thin the herd than send them all to MCRD and let’s see what happens. I’ve seen posts about how Marines always overstate their accomplishments but let’s just look at the numbers and battle ribbons of the two forces and it’s obvious who’s the overachievers.

Semper Fi

Response by CPT Wallace Ward made Jan 5 at 2019 7:23 PM

CPT Wallace Ward — Sat, 05 Jan 2019 19:23:10 -0500

This is the stupidest thing that always comes up. It’s stupid.

And Marines, I am just as proud of being a soldier as you are of the Marines.

Response by MAJ Richard Cheek made Jan 5 at 2019 7:25 PM

MAJ Richard Cheek — Sat, 05 Jan 2019 19:25:36 -0500

This came up after WWII getting rid of the airborne came up and comes up all the time. It aint gonna happen as long as one paratrooper or one marine is breathing.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 5 at 2019 7:32 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 05 Jan 2019 19:32:58 -0500

Emotions aside, they are two different branches. Generally speaking, Marines are a quick strike force, Army is an occupational force. They have two completely different mission sets in a near peer war.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 5 at 2019 7:59 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 05 Jan 2019 19:59:09 -0500

Honestly from the outside view such as yours. goals might seem similar and organization the same. This is simply not the case. Marine combat units have a different organizational and distribution style then the Army. Yes there are some overlapping goals for each branch in theatre but both are fielded with different equipment and different deployment requirements in mind. Some simple examples include a Marine Infantry squad composition vs a Army Infantry Squad Compositon. Or Engineer assets and purposes. Or Special Operations. Just these examples alone may seem like small differences but it effects doctrine and tasking heavily. Each branch has their specialties simply put.

Response by Cpl Brett Reynante made Jan 5 at 2019 8:11 PM

Cpl Brett Reynante — Sat, 05 Jan 2019 20:11:33 -0500

Oh hell no. Our mission statement (the Marines) is so different than the Army’s. We have earned everything that we are through the trials of conflict and humanitarian operations. We are unique in what we do. We are the best at what we do. We have earned the right to be. Separate service.

Response by SSG Robin Lawson made Jan 5 at 2019 8:20 PM

SSG Robin Lawson — Sat, 05 Jan 2019 20:20:58 -0500

Served in both Hell no different jobs and responsibilities

Response by MSgt Oliver Wright made Jan 5 at 2019 8:36 PM

MSgt Oliver Wright — Sat, 05 Jan 2019 20:36:29 -0500

Response by LCDR Jerry Maurer made Jan 5 at 2019 9:24 PM

LCDR Jerry Maurer — Sat, 05 Jan 2019 21:24:26 -0500

Marines are first in, blitz attacks. After they soften the target, army comes in for the long haul. Totally different goals and training. I'm enlisted infantry and officer Navy, working with Marines. Both have a proud history and would both be less if combined

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 5 at 2019 9:25 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 05 Jan 2019 21:25:48 -0500

As a Soldier who has worked with the USMC and even attended a USMC tactical training school, I believe the unique operational conditions created by the close association of the USMC and USN while undertaking Fleet and amphibious duties or missions necessitates the USMC remaining as it is. Hypothetically one could consolidate USMC into USA, but the long term specialization created by training for Fleet and amphibious operations would end up functioning like a seperate branch anyway.

Response by CPO Jerry Lawrence made Jan 5 at 2019 9:26 PM

CPO Jerry Lawrence — Sat, 05 Jan 2019 21:26:38 -0500

No! They have different missions. Why introduce new ideology into something that was establish at the beginning of our country.

Response by PFC Gerald Bailey made Jan 5 at 2019 9:45 PM

PFC Gerald Bailey — Sat, 05 Jan 2019 21:45:33 -0500

I say no. I'm Army and can see that the Marines train for spearheading beach heads and assualt type situations, whereas the Army trains mainly for holding early objectives. Plus the Marines have always been a sub-branch of the Navy. Now, recombining the Army and Air Force would be prudent.

Response by PFC Elijah Rose made Jan 5 at 2019 9:58 PM

PFC Elijah Rose — Sat, 05 Jan 2019 21:58:38 -0500

In this case, the marines have expanded far beyond their original purpose of ad hoc units of naval infantry. They could be merged with the Army and just make an extra MOS or two if needed.
Actually, we'd save time and money if we did away with branches altogether. Training schools are more efficient when they're not offered only a coupke times a year, promotions are more hit and miss when there are 5 parallel commands, and there's lots of overlap in day to day so that it's common for anything from individual soldiers to very large units of one branch to be under the command of another. I.E. we actually have two air forces because the Navy has more planes than most countries, and most but not all Blackhawk helicopters are run by the Army. There are so many ad hoc exceptions to branches that it would be easier if we organized training simply by job category, and staffed units and bases however we feel like.

Response by SGT Michael Leguillow Jr. made Jan 5 at 2019 10:47 PM

SGT Michael Leguillow Jr. — Sat, 05 Jan 2019 22:47:56 -0500

No I believe it should stay the way it is.

Response by SPC Jim Urton made Jan 5 at 2019 10:58 PM

SPC Jim Urton — Sat, 05 Jan 2019 22:58:32 -0500

Speaking as an Army vet and someone that worked for Atari back in the day. The biggest issues would be inter-service communication and logistics. Atari had 3 separate divisions back in the 80’s, and there was so much duplication of effort and expense because they all ran independently of each other instead of a real centralized management system. Kind of like how the military branches are now.

If our defense spending can be done more efficiently with everyone reporting to one “manager”, I’d be for it.

Response by Cpl Edward Barber made Jan 5 at 2019 11:34 PM

Cpl Edward Barber — Sat, 05 Jan 2019 23:34:05 -0500

Well that would be hard to do considering that the Marine Corps are actually classified as a department of the Navy and all funding for the Marine corps comes from DOD to Navy then to Marine Corps.... Second as department of the Navy we Marines provide a security force to the Navy for their ships while at Port in foreign lands also usually when the crap starts Navy ships are usually first on scene and that is what the expeditionary forces are for..... So these are some really really really big hiccup's to overcome that would screw with the system with miscommunication amongst other things getting people killed in the field because no one knows what is going in battle field ..... System works great the way it is leave it alone

Response by Sgt Benjamin Naranjo made Jan 6 at 2019 2:30 AM

Sgt Benjamin Naranjo — Sun, 06 Jan 2019 02:30:36 -0500

Goes to show that you don’t need to be knowledgeable about the subject in order to write an article about it.

The United States Marine Corps already belongs to somebody...... the navy. Hence why in every marine corps shield there is the “Department of the navy” slogan.

The navy and army cannot merge because they have a completely different mission. One is to protect United States interest at sea and the other one on land. The problem is, in a time of war the navy cannot depend on the army for protection. The reason being is said difference in mission. The secretary of the army will take any action that has the Army’s best interest over the navy and navy’s Secretary will do the same. Therefore the navy had to come down with its own fighting force that would keep navy’s mission as a priority. That’s how the United States Marine Corps came to be.

The United States Marine Corps has a different mission than the army as well. Army is a land based fighting force and air borne, the marine corps is an amphibious unit. Why?, because the marine corps come use navy’s ships to go around. Why?, because like I said above, the marine corps is a navy department. That is why there is no Secretary of the Marine Corps.

Response by LCpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 6 at 2019 3:00 AM

LCpl Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 06 Jan 2019 03:00:33 -0500

Ok before I say what’s on my mind I want to make it clear I don’t want to combine the Army and Marines. I joined the Marines for a reason and that is pride. As a Marine I see myself as faster,stronger, harder, and a better shot then any other branch.
Now to my opinion, the difference between the Army and Marines is not in the way we fight (though there are differences) but in our leadership. We have E2s and E3s consistently as fire team leaders, even when higher is available. We do this because it’s expected of them to do that. We train them “young” so they can be the best when they are NCOs and SNCOs. As an E3 myself I’m expected to teach my jr Marines how to do their MOS, I’m already a leader and I’ve only been out of MOS school 11 months. At one point I was the ranking Jr Marine in my shop so I was expected to and did classes to make sure my Jr Marines could do the job just as well as I could if not better. That’s the difference is the standard we hold ourselves to.
My second point is where do we stop if we combine the Army and the Marines? Why not just make it one big military and then have our airwing (Air Force), sea section (Navy), ground force (Army and Marines) and then we could have all the Special Force under one command, no more SEALs, Rangers, Green Barets, PJs, SWCC, MARSOC Raiders, CCTs, SOWTs, why not just make it all one that way we never have to worry about a spending budget we just get all the money and no one lives in worse conditions then the others or no one trains any harder then the others. Yes I know America doesn’t need a Marine Corps they want one but I think y’all get my point.

Response by CWO2 Bill Kelly made Jan 6 at 2019 8:24 AM

CWO2 Bill Kelly — Sun, 06 Jan 2019 08:24:54 -0500

There are a lot of responses here so I may have missed somebody already saying this but ... My two cents. Missions are similar but different. The Marine Corps is purposely meant not to be as widely scoped and equipment heavy as the Army. Hence we no longer have self propelled artillery. The Army has doctors, nurses, veterinarian services, community programs, etc., etc. .... The Corps doesn't have those things on purpose. The Corps also has the amphibious aspect. The tip of the spear vice the whole spear. Both are fruit so to speak but one is an apple the other is an orange. And all kidding aside, 13 weeks of boot camp vice 8 weeks has got to tell you something. I went to boot camp in 1975. We started with 89; 57 graduated. Out of those 57; 29 were original members of the 89. We dropped 60. Physical standards are harder.

Response by Cpl Larry Parrish made Jan 6 at 2019 9:29 AM

Cpl Larry Parrish — Sun, 06 Jan 2019 09:29:16 -0500

NO, we are trained to do different jobs and even tho the media thinks they are the same, they are not. The Army will set up & control an area after the Marines drive the enemy away and make it clear for the US to control. Marines work in smaller groups and the Army sends a flotilla and requires many ore for support. NO KEEP THEM SEPARATED and let us do our jobs as trained.

Response by SSgt Scotty Marks made Jan 6 at 2019 10:30 AM

SSgt Scotty Marks — Sun, 06 Jan 2019 10:30:21 -0500

The Marine Corps is a naval service. End of discussion.

Response by SSgt Bernard Reece made Jan 6 at 2019 10:35 AM

SSgt Bernard Reece — Sun, 06 Jan 2019 10:35:18 -0500

Consolidation saves nothing. Someone get their feelings hurt? They both have their purpose and history. Their history is unique. From my perspective a Marine . I am and forever will be a MARINE(air,land,sea) Served 6 years in MY Corps. (Vietnam and Cambodia). Served 16 in the USA. I am NOT an Army. It is that simple. Semper-Fi 1970-1995 . God Bless America

Response by Sgt Stephen King made Jan 6 at 2019 10:47 AM

Sgt Stephen King — Sun, 06 Jan 2019 10:47:36 -0500

Analytics only this is a bad idea. The Marine Corps is solely an attack and kill force. Designed for rapid deployment, short to medium sustainment and ultimately a shock and awe weapon. The army on the other hand is built largely like a long sustaining police force. I have trained in both branches and can tell you this would not work. Completely different mind sets in terms of combat focus and starategy. All branches are needed for their speciality and focus. It seems to me that you are new generation of thinking where we are degrading back to the thought process of hug everyone and judge no one is becoming so prevelant I am concerned for our country.

Response by SFC Bill Kurtz made Jan 6 at 2019 12:36 PM

SFC Bill Kurtz — Sun, 06 Jan 2019 12:36:03 -0500

I don’t think it will ever happen. First and foremost look at all the $$$ in the change. Don’t really think it’s needed. AND there would be an uproar from active duty and vets.

Response by SGT Nathan Vitartas made Jan 6 at 2019 12:49 PM

SGT Nathan Vitartas — Sun, 06 Jan 2019 12:49:27 -0500

Whatever happened to the space force?

Response by SGT Jarrod Bowen made Jan 6 at 2019 1:31 PM

SGT Jarrod Bowen — Sun, 06 Jan 2019 13:31:49 -0500

One of the worst possible in the world. Whoever came up with this idea needs to be hanged

Response by CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 6 at 2019 2:13 PM

CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 06 Jan 2019 14:13:05 -0500

Response by Sgt Robbie MacDonald made Jan 6 at 2019 3:06 PM

Sgt Robbie MacDonald — Sun, 06 Jan 2019 15:06:59 -0500

The Marines are part of the Navy. Have been since the Revolutionary War. We don't like to admit it, but it is true.

Response by PFC Ryan Battista made Jan 6 at 2019 5:17 PM

PFC Ryan Battista — Sun, 06 Jan 2019 17:17:16 -0500

The Marines have several aspects the Army does not. First of all, due to our small size we can be activated and deployed with out congressional approval, only the Presidents authority. Each Marine Dividion is also a fully encapsulated strike force, with its own integrated artillery, air support, logistics, and everything else needed to streamline operations. We are a rapid attack force, where the army is better suited for long-term, theatre wide operations.

Response by SPC Jeffery Snodgrass made Jan 6 at 2019 6:04 PM

SPC Jeffery Snodgrass — Sun, 06 Jan 2019 18:04:41 -0500

No. Fuck that. Dont need a bunch of crayon eating cult members. Army and Air Force should merge like in WWII. Just make Marines what they are. Naval infantry

Response by LCpl Nico Thomas made Jan 6 at 2019 6:18 PM

LCpl Nico Thomas — Sun, 06 Jan 2019 18:18:52 -0500

Who in the hell wrote this article? No! If I wanted to be in the Army, I would've joined the Army. I joined the Marines and earned a title that I will carry until I die. Analystics can't compute es spirit de Corps, the gusto, heart, will, and pain it took to become a Marine. If the Army adopted the Marine Corps identity, most soldiers would quit the first day of training.

Response by LCpl Nico Thomas made Jan 6 at 2019 6:27 PM

LCpl Nico Thomas — Sun, 06 Jan 2019 18:27:17 -0500

No and No... Emotional response or not, I am a Marine. The traditions, uniforms, Drill, and the relentless way we fight is of that a Marine. I will not and cannot die unless ordered. They don't even instruct they way my graduating recruit class was taught anymore. This isn't a matter of consideration. Numbers mean nothing to the few and the proud.

Response by Cpl Bryon Larson made Jan 6 at 2019 6:42 PM

Cpl Bryon Larson — Sun, 06 Jan 2019 18:42:45 -0500

The one thing is that all you our forgetting is that all marines no matter mos our rifleman and must qualify as one with there rifles. And the army have to here mos.

Response by SSgt Russell Stevens made Jan 6 at 2019 7:49 PM

SSgt Russell Stevens — Sun, 06 Jan 2019 19:49:26 -0500

We don't need to combine the two. Sure do some joint traing since they serve under the same flag. Both are needed. The Army to die in new weapons system we don't understand and Marines to receive the hand me downs when we do.

Response by CSM Tommy Nester made Jan 6 at 2019 9:43 PM

CSM Tommy Nester — Sun, 06 Jan 2019 21:43:11 -0500

The Amy and Marines have totally different missions and should remain as is. Both have excel at what they do and should continue to do this for 200 more years. Been counters be darned. XIth Regimental Command Sergeant Major 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment (Retired).

Response by SSG Darrell Peters made Jan 7 at 2019 1:43 AM

SSG Darrell Peters — Mon, 07 Jan 2019 01:43:31 -0500

Here is the Thing. they tried this once before. President Roosevelt before World War II. Failed Miserably. One thing Roosevelt found out. He couldn't send the Army or the Navy to guard Embassies had something to do with International Law. The Canadians for example use the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to Guard their Embassies and the French I believe use the French National Gendarmerie. Because of a "loop hole" in International Law this is why the USMC is used to Guard Embassies to my Understanding. Legally they are not an Army and they are not a Navy. Because of this Status they can do things that the Army and Navy Can't do. If anyone has further information on this subject I would enjoy reading it.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 7 at 2019 2:51 AM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 07 Jan 2019 02:51:29 -0500

No, and the only people that ask these questions are fools. Look at history and what each force is charged with and you’d just make everything slower. Why not just make everything under one then; answer, because it’s stupid and will dumb things down and competition will be lost.

Just because the past few wars have seen the army and marine corps doing nearly identical jobs and duties shouldn’t bring about ideas of mergers. Though who knows, Marines always get the job done, maybe we should absorb our floating taxi company. Maybe ships will stop hitting other ships

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 7 at 2019 7:17 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 07 Jan 2019 07:17:11 -0500

The Marine Corps. has a vital strategic purpose: a true global response force. While the Army has XVIII ABC, that’d Be like comparing Grapefruits to Key Limes.

The Army, culturally, would be hurt by this. We already have many Army Officers who conflate capability for purpose. The Army exists to “choke out” an opponent, while the Marine Corps exists to make an opponent reconsider getting into a full fight. That’s why our GRF has days for logistic considerations vs. weeks for a MEW - our GRF is just the torch for the rest of the Army.
That said, the Air Force is a duplication of purpose with the Navy. Both are strategic force projectors - one just does it exclusively in the air.

Response by SPC William Hasley made Jan 7 at 2019 7:36 AM

SPC William Hasley — Mon, 07 Jan 2019 07:36:24 -0500

Please, No! The two units are not the same. I only did two years in the army, but spent one of those years at Quang Tri combat base working with and next to Marines. Marines see themselves as all-fight all the time. They pride themselves, correctly, on the fact every man (Or woman, relax, I was in in 1968. Women weren’t a factor then.) is an infantryman. The Army fights, but does lots of other thing too. I was an 11B, but I have read that the Army has over one hundred MOS designations. A blatant example is that the Army has hospitals, doctors, dentists, and nurses. The Marines doesn’t even have its own medical corpsman. Let the two units be. They’re both what they’re supposed to be.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 7 at 2019 9:49 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 07 Jan 2019 09:49:36 -0500

While cutting back on administrative burdens would be amazing, there's better ways of doing it than this. At their core doctrine, the Army and Marines have totally different purposes. While these doctrines support each other, each is equally important to the success of the other individually as well. Trying to merge the two would be more problematic than problem solving than pretty much any other possible plan to administratively streamline their operation. Then there's the pride and tradition that enters the equation which completely seals the deal against this being a good idea.

Response by SFC Joseph McCausland made Jan 8 at 2019 7:01 PM

SFC Joseph McCausland — Tue, 08 Jan 2019 19:01:39 -0500

Absolutely not, they each have a separate wartime mission and each are individually proud of their heritage. We have done just fine with two separate branches, through countless wars.
"When it ain't broke.... no need to fix it".

Response by LTC John Wilson made Jan 9 at 2019 10:56 PM

LTC John Wilson — Wed, 09 Jan 2019 22:56:03 -0500

At first the idea of consolidating all branches under one umbrella sounds like the ideal solution for our Department of Defense and its fighting branches. Then, there is the realization that each branch was formed to perform different missions and require different training to excel at that mission.
I was a young Marine and I served in the Corps for six years. I loved the Esprit De Corps and the friendship that was formed as a fighting force. My morale was sky high and I believed I could whip anyone anywhere.
But alas, I left the Marines to join the U.S. Army and take advantage of many of the things the Marine Corps couldn't or wouldn't offer me. I went to OCS, Jump School, SFOC, Winter Warfare Training in Alaska, and finally Language School, before being sent to Vietnam. Being with Army Special Forces made me proud to accept a challenge and complete it successfully and feel the pride in doing so. Leading elite forces engendered me with the pride that I was capable of leading such a unique force.
When in the Corps I tried my best to be part of Force Recon. I would train for it, take the test and pass and only be told that I could not transfer to Force Recon because I was in a Critical Military Occupation Specialty. After three refusals, I left for the Army, where I got to get the training I felt was uplifting to me. I wanted to be in the action, and I wanted to further my abilities as I grew with the service. The Army gave me those chances.
Now, I will not bad mouth the Corps. They did their best with the budget they had and they did one excellent job. The Army had a larger budget and offered more chances to expand my horizons. I would not consolidate these branches. I would make sure they received adequate funding so they could successfully complete their missions and allow their personnel to be the best they can be. Officers and enlisted should be challenged to do their best in everything they do. They should also feel the pride in their branch that makes them want to be better than yesterday and even more qualified tomorrow.

Response by SGT Michael Leguillow Jr. made Jan 13 at 2019 8:52 AM

SGT Michael Leguillow Jr. — Sun, 13 Jan 2019 08:52:09 -0500

Response by Cpl Bernard Bates made Jan 14 at 2019 9:40 AM

Cpl Bernard Bates — Mon, 14 Jan 2019 09:40:16 -0500

Why does the Army always want to be like Marines? Let them earn their own history. The psychology is different The Marines have been a sea going military unit since 1775. The army is a land military unit. Marines are taught to attack at once and to hold their ground. The Army has to think about it before they attack. It drives Marine commanders nuts. I went to the leadership academy in the army after spending 4yrs in the Corp, We had a field problem. I was a Squad Leader moving along side a dirt trail. A machine gun started firing. I told the Squad lets get!em. We took off running in the brush on the side of the road and almost caught them. At the recap afterwards the instructor said." I!m not saying your wrong, but you should have waited for the rest of the unit to catch up. I did what I learned in the Marine corp. The element of supprise is very important be where the enemy doesn't expect you. I know in Iraq and Afghanistan Army units were assigned to Marine Units and they requested to wear Marine corp patches on their Uniforms. This made a lot of marines angry because Marines don't wear unit patches. The Commandant said since the army has a proud history of wearing unit patches, he would grant them the privilege of wearing Marine unit patches. Semper Fi.

Response by Maj Wayne Crist made Jan 18 at 2019 10:31 AM

Maj Wayne Crist — Fri, 18 Jan 2019 10:31:59 -0500

Read our military history and you will see why we have the separate services. Combining would just recreate the mistakes of the past.

Response by Maj Wayne Crist made Jan 18 at 2019 10:41 AM

Maj Wayne Crist — Fri, 18 Jan 2019 10:41:54 -0500

Read our military history and you will understand why the services are separate. We don't need to recreate the mistakes of the past.

Response by SPC Chris Ison made Jan 19 at 2019 7:31 PM

SPC Chris Ison — Sat, 19 Jan 2019 19:31:17 -0500

NO!

The purpose of the Marine Corps is to give the Department of the Navy a land task force.

And since congress has the express permission, by the constitution, to keep and maintain a Navy, but not to keep and maintain an army, as it is expressly limited to funding an army for up to 2 years at a time; What i think we need is to put the regular army back in the box, and use the national guard for what it was intended to be as expressed by the second amendment.

A well regulated militia, being necessary for a FREE STATE (note it doesn't say country it says state, as in the state of Virginia). the right of the people to keep and bear arms a shall not be infringed.

And for all you ignorant people that are going to say I am reading it wrong, i invite you to see what kind of units were used to fight all the wars up until Korea.

The 82nd All American, is all American because the 82n Expeditionary force sent to France in WWI was compromised of units from every state.

The 54th Massachusetts portrayed int he movie Glory was a national guard unit.

Hell, you couldn't enlist in a California unit form New York before WWII. if you wanted to be on the west coast you had to move.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 20 at 2019 5:36 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 20 Jan 2019 17:36:26 -0500

I can say, after serving in both the Marine Corps and the Army Reserve, NO! Leave the components separate. I went to Parris Island for Boot Camp not knowing where in the hell I'd end up going to my MOS schooling at, but Soldiers 9 times out of 10 go to Boot Camp and AIT at the same place. The Discipline that I learned at Boot Camp and the new Marines if dropped off into a Army Unit, there would be so much trouble. Marines are a different breed and we let people know the day we graduated Boot Camp and it wouldn't be good. I see new Soldiers coming out of AIT, with little to no discipline and a Marine First Sergeant would eat them alive.

Response by CH (CPT) Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 21 at 2019 6:10 PM

CH (CPT) Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 21 Jan 2019 18:10:56 -0500

Response by MSG Johnathan Mathes made Feb 2 at 2019 10:24 PM

MSG Johnathan Mathes — Sat, 02 Feb 2019 22:24:49 -0500

1st you have to realize that there is a reason that they are different... they have similarities but a different reason for existence... the marines exist for land operations for the navy... such as island hopping... they are a reaction as well as a protection force for the navy.. the army isn’t ocean borne.. they aren’t meant for a island raider.. the army is a ground pound and own force... ..

Response by LCpl Aaron Freeman made Feb 4 at 2019 3:07 PM

LCpl Aaron Freeman — Mon, 04 Feb 2019 15:07:47 -0500

Oh, HELL NO! Marines are Marines; not Soldiers! They're nothing like us, and they can't be like us, unless they earn their EGA, PERIOD!!! I'm not the only Marine that will say this!

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 4 at 2019 3:45 PM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 04 Feb 2019 15:45:28 -0500

No because the marine corps and army missions are different. Marines are an amphibious force that are designed specifically to eliminate the enemy. The army is an occupational force. They provide all around defense for the country. While similar in combat action, the goals of the branches are different.

Response by GySgt David Lemanske made Feb 4 at 2019 4:59 PM

GySgt David Lemanske — Mon, 04 Feb 2019 16:59:11 -0500

different missions require different standards.

Response by LTC Plint Hickman made Feb 15 at 2019 11:50 AM

LTC Plint Hickman — Fri, 15 Feb 2019 11:50:09 -0500

All one uniform. All fight the same wars. Same weapons (minor exceptions). Reduce costs supply issues.

Response by SSG Paul Ellis made Feb 19 at 2019 6:38 PM

SSG Paul Ellis — Tue, 19 Feb 2019 18:38:52 -0500

There's really no honest way to answer that question WITHOUT going into traditions and camaraderie. The Army and Marines work differently and both have too many traditions and too much pride in their service to be jelled together into one service. Beyond the different traditions, uniforms and (certain) standards, there are distinctly different mindsets.

I think we're being trolled on this question. It sounds like the kind of idea some civilian bean counter in the Pentagon (who'd never served a day in uniform) would come up with.

Response by Sgt Ben Gentry made Feb 25 at 2019 6:10 PM

Sgt Ben Gentry — Mon, 25 Feb 2019 18:10:37 -0500

Not only NO but HELL NO!!! ARMY stands for ain’t ready for Marines yet. There is a reason for that.

Response by PO1 Richard Norton made Feb 27 at 2019 1:08 PM

PO1 Richard Norton — Wed, 27 Feb 2019 13:08:07 -0500

I have to agree with the SSGT Luck on this one. The army and marines have a different function. Where there is room for training and exercises to be conducted together then by all means work together.

Response by CAPT Hiram Patterson made Feb 28 at 2019 4:20 PM

CAPT Hiram Patterson — Thu, 28 Feb 2019 16:20:55 -0500

No, the Marines and Navy are a team and always will be! Just kidding, but why would they want to downgrade?

Response by SGT Reynaldo Munoz made Mar 5 at 2019 5:08 PM

SGT Reynaldo Munoz — Tue, 05 Mar 2019 17:08:30 -0500

I was stationed in Viet Nam 67-68 with the IST Air Cavalry we were up north I recall saving some Marines who where about to get wiped out not once but 3 times because we were all on the same team so to me as a squadleader with 2 bronze stars we where all in Gods hands

Response by Cpl Jesse Griffin made Mar 14 at 2019 4:32 AM

Cpl Jesse Griffin — Thu, 14 Mar 2019 04:32:58 -0400

Being a double jeopardy vet(both a Marine and a Soldier[ being in combat in Vietnam as both] I would like to say that there are distinct differences in both branches. However in combat those differences are not relevant to the activity at hand. I wear both the Combat Action Ribbon and the Combat Infantryman's Badge and am honored that I can wear both with an equal sense of pride. They were hard to get.

Response by LCpl Cody Collins made Mar 22 at 2019 12:29 PM

LCpl Cody Collins — Fri, 22 Mar 2019 12:29:17 -0400

NO ! ABSOLUTELY NOT ! there's no similarity between the two. The level of discipline between the 2 is like the gap in the Grand Canyon, The can do spirit That is instilled in Marines in and of itself, Shows a difference between army and Marine Corps. The history of the 2 are completely different also. You know that there's a difference by how many people defect from Marine Corps to realist in the army versus how many people defect from the army and realist in the Marine Corps have someone work up the statistics on that and you will see why Both army and marine should always remain separate and unequal

Response by Sgt John W Clarke made Mar 23 at 2019 12:43 PM

Sgt John W Clarke — Sat, 23 Mar 2019 12:43:43 -0400

Though I respect each services traditions I find that the Navy is well suited to carry out its mission on both land and sea. As for the USAF which I have more experience I find that we do better in combat by the needs of both the Army and Marines when they are in need of having someone to bail them out.

Response by SMSgt Jeff Kyle made Mar 23 at 2019 1:37 PM

SMSgt Jeff Kyle — Sat, 23 Mar 2019 13:37:50 -0400

You aske that we put aside camaraderie and traditions aside. The Marines are the door kickers, the first boots on the ground. Yes the Army has Airborne and Rangers. But there’s much more to the Marine Corps than just beans, bullets and beers. Marines don’t give up. It’s in our DNA. First to Fight against any country that wants to stick their nose into our business. Marines don’t give up, nor do they give in. They, we, are all devoted to God, Country and Corps. We will fight hard and expect no support outside of ourselves and our Navy brethren.
You cannot separate Marines from their esprit de corps, camaraderie nor traditions. Without them, you have a typical Army unit. And that’s not showing disrespect to the Army. We eat, breath, occasionally sleep, live for each other and the Marine Corps. Where other units say “we can’t do that”, the Marines say “step aside, we’ll clean this cluster flack up right and proper”. This may not be what you are looking for but it’s the best answer I can give.
Cpl, USMC, 6113/6167
SMSgt USAF, 2A572/2A590

Response by SPC James Gromley made Mar 24 at 2019 2:25 PM

SPC James Gromley — Sun, 24 Mar 2019 14:25:58 -0400

No, they are 2 complete different types of units.

Response by SPC William Hasley made Apr 6 at 2019 8:38 PM

SPC William Hasley — Sat, 06 Apr 2019 20:38:57 -0400

As an Army vet, I agree with all the “No” votes. In ‘68, my unit shared Quang Tri with the third Marines. We fought alongside them. I have no intention of saying who was better or worse, but we WERE different. Our missions were different and Lord knows our attitudes were different. We need them both, but we need then separate.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 12 at 2019 11:54 AM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Apr 2019 11:54:26 -0400

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 14 at 2019 10:39 AM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 14 Apr 2019 10:39:36 -0400

About 15 years ago I heard from a little birdie that they (the brass) where planning on combining all the forces into one and that they would first change all the uniforms to the same one (digital working) just keeping the branch they belong to on them. After they changed the uniforms they would then start to combine the forces i.e. USN and USMC, Army and USAF or Army and USMC, USAF and USN and then after everyone got over the change then they would combine the USN and the Army to make one force (I can't remember now what they said the name was going to be.)
Sorry if you wanted to keep the branches the same but you can't change what the bean counters wont!

Response by Sgt Raymond Mirabile made Apr 20 at 2019 1:57 AM

Sgt Raymond Mirabile — Sat, 20 Apr 2019 01:57:10 -0400

The USA "NEEDS" A MARINE CORPS. The duties of Marines are varied and many. From amphibious assault operations and training (of which that responsibility was spelled out in the National Security Act of 1947) to Rapid Deployment within hours from ships carrying what used to be called Battalion Landing Teams and are now MEU's I believe...protecting American lives and Assets abroad, Embassy Security, Exrending and projecting American interests and policy from the fleet, assist in putting down insurgencies that are threatening to overthrow friendly governments, conduct vertical assaults from Amphibious assault ships and counter insurgency operations. I am sure I left some out.
Additionally Marines DO NOT fight like the army. They are trained differently for a different mission. Tactics and strategies are tailored to that mission and every Marine is made aware of that during training.
The main difference however is psychological. When the SHTF it's the Espirit de Corps that makes the difference. Certain types join the Corps knowing they are going to go though Hell in Boot Camp. When they graduate they are MARINES ! Not soldiers or airmen or sailors but MARINES! THAT is what makes Marines fight differently than the army. Marines move faster and are deadlier because we "Advance to Contact" That was expressed by an army commander during the Grenada operation. Marines were called off the line during the battle of Okinawa to take a position the army commander refused to continue attacking. Certain enemy soldiers avoided contact with Marines in Korea and it was reported that some army transportation guys painted USMC on their trucks because they thought the enemy would hesitate more before attacking a Marine convoy. Without the Marines standing ready within hours to attack and destroy an enemy of America. Or attack and hold for reinforcements THE USA would be dangerously vulnerable. It's tradition and honor for The Corps and what it stands for. And there is more Mickey Mouse BS in the Corps that will piss off Marine before he even meets the enemy. Lol.
Read General
Vandegrifts "Not on Bended Knee" speech to Congress after WWII when they wanted to disband The Corps.
Marines ARE different. There is no pencil pushing , accounting, logistical, or DoD attempt that can account for that "spark". .."Rangers".. will get what I'm talking about.

Response by SGT William D. Mitchell made Apr 22 at 2019 2:56 PM

SGT William D. Mitchell — Mon, 22 Apr 2019 14:56:36 -0400

I am not a jarhead, but I say no. Different cultures.

Response by LCpl Stephen Sharp made Jul 22 at 2019 1:41 AM

LCpl Stephen Sharp — Mon, 22 Jul 2019 01:41:45 -0400

NO!! Nuff Said

Response by LCpl Stephen Sharp made Jul 22 at 2019 1:42 AM

LCpl Stephen Sharp — Mon, 22 Jul 2019 01:42:19 -0400

NO!! NUFF SAID.

Response by Cpl James R. " Jim" Gossett Jr made Sep 13 at 2019 6:18 PM

Cpl James R. " Jim" Gossett Jr — Fri, 13 Sep 2019 18:18:29 -0400

Hell NO...Are you Crazy????????????????????

Response by SFC Donald Souza made Jan 22 at 2020 12:52 PM

SFC Donald Souza — Wed, 22 Jan 2020 12:52:36 -0500

Response by SGT Chris Flint made Jan 22 at 2020 2:09 PM

SGT Chris Flint — Wed, 22 Jan 2020 14:09:48 -0500

Such a stupid idea

Response by CPT Rex Siemer made Jan 22 at 2020 7:04 PM

CPT Rex Siemer — Wed, 22 Jan 2020 19:04:30 -0500

There are so many reasons NOT to combine the two branches. Being an Army Officer, seperated, and having a son, SSG, USMC, When we talk about what is going on within each, it becomes clear that the two could not combine. Each has a defined role in the total force objective. Training together in a combat arms role could and should be explored, as they have similar equipment and objectives, but other than that, no point. Marines are Marines, always have been and there should be no changes to fall in line with the Army and their history.

Response by PO3 Dennis Kordes made Jan 22 at 2020 9:05 PM

PO3 Dennis Kordes — Wed, 22 Jan 2020 21:05:29 -0500

The Marine Corps is already a department of the Navy. And we don't have any more time to take in more strays.

Response by SSG John Allison made Jan 23 at 2020 2:50 PM

SSG John Allison — Thu, 23 Jan 2020 14:50:42 -0500

No! Nothing against the Marines but they really only have 2 missions to focus on. Security at our foreign country embassies,and establishing a beachhead as part of an invasion. The Army is tasked with landing combat troop's behind enemy lines by using paratroopers. And fighting a major land war. The Marines aren't big enough to continue a wide front battle for any length of time. Only the Army can do that.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 24 at 2020 11:35 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 24 Jan 2020 11:35:30 -0500

I don’t think they should merge. I do think the training should be made the same and perhaps ranks. With the seaborn operations for the marines being extra.

Response by SN James Brammer made Jan 25 at 2020 4:59 PM

SN James Brammer — Sat, 25 Jan 2020 16:59:16 -0500

My understanding of the how and why the different branches are set up can be best explained by how World War II was conducted.
The Army and Air Force primarily waged the war against the Nazis in Europe. While the Navy and Marine Corps waged war with Japan in the Pacific.
In the years ahead it is possible that America will have to fight a three front war. A war against China in the Pacific, possibly against China in Africa. Secondly a war the Middle East against Iran. Thirdly a war in Europe against Russia.
Then we have to consider a battle for space. "He who controls the Heavens will control Earth."

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 27 at 2020 3:11 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 27 Jan 2020 15:11:33 -0500

Problem with combining army and Marines is Marines are specialized in an area. Second sorry to say this but the Corp is still parts of the Navy no matter how much they want to deny it.
But if you combine one you may as well combine all.

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 28 at 2020 6:35 AM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 28 Jan 2020 06:35:03 -0500

The Army and Marines shouldn't be consolidated. They are two completely different entities and the Marines are part of the Navy.

Response by CSM Tommy Nester made Jan 28 at 2020 8:23 PM

CSM Tommy Nester — Tue, 28 Jan 2020 20:23:15 -0500

Different missions leave them alone

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 29 at 2020 3:50 AM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 29 Jan 2020 03:50:17 -0500

If anything I would think the Marine Corps, being a Expeditionary Sea-Service, would merge with the Navy before the Army. Not that I’m saying that should happen at all...
I DO think, however, that Marines should be put back on Sea Duty and Naval Stations, and the Navy should down-size the Master-at-Arms rating, that’s literally one of the jobs Marines were created for. Get all those SAILORS off of shoreside bases, and get them on vessels in other ratings. And put a squad or platoon of Marines on EVERY Navy Vessel- Cruisers, Destroyers, all of them. Let the Army take back the concern of prolonged land combat, and Marines worry about expeditionary raids from the Sea.

Response by SFC Stephen Pointer made Jan 29 at 2020 10:23 PM

SFC Stephen Pointer — Wed, 29 Jan 2020 22:23:36 -0500

I have no desire to eat crayons.

Response by Cpl Ed Hines made Jan 30 at 2020 9:21 AM

Cpl Ed Hines — Thu, 30 Jan 2020 09:21:42 -0500

No.

Response by Cpl Charles Reeves made Jan 30 at 2020 10:08 AM

Cpl Charles Reeves — Thu, 30 Jan 2020 10:08:09 -0500

Here’s your objective Response. Not the first time the Corps been attacked as nonessential and it won’t be the last. End result is always the same. Something happens and people realize they are essential and that’s the end of the argument until some other politician deems them nonessential again and the fight starts over with the same result. Same could be said for the Air Force. Some of these pilots in the world are Navy and Marine Corps.

Response by CW3 Preston Leingang made Feb 21 at 2020 11:11 AM

CW3 Preston Leingang — Fri, 21 Feb 2020 11:11:06 -0500

Yes - where practical. Most of the initial advanced training facilities are managed by Army TRADOC. Infantry, armor, artillery, combat engineers, combat support units, combat service support units are replicated by both Army and Marines for the most part. In the Special Ops operations many are joint now. If it makes sense to combine and take the best of both elements, and it eliminates redundancy in training, deployment, and there could potentially be a cost savings (last consideration) we should do it. If I remember correctly Canada successfully combined their forces under one command way back in the late 60s early 70s as have many of our NATO Allies. This is my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

Preston Leingang
CWO(R) - AUS

Response by Sgt Gary Crittenden made Feb 27 at 2020 12:53 PM

Sgt Gary Crittenden — Thu, 27 Feb 2020 12:53:22 -0500

Response by CPT Larry Hudson made Jun 29 at 2020 9:17 PM

CPT Larry Hudson — Mon, 29 Jun 2020 21:17:45 -0400

Consolidation would save tons of money, hopefully Army will adopt marine uniform instead of the new old WW II uniform whis looks like south american uniforms. Wondered where thhose old uniforms went.

Response by SSG Ed Hartman made Nov 2 at 2020 5:00 PM

SSG Ed Hartman — Mon, 02 Nov 2020 17:00:49 -0500

Being a member of both the marines and the Army, I would say, "yes, but". Let me clarify.
Despite the gallons of money now being pumped into DoD, this country cannot (and should not) afford to keep 2 armies, 2 navies, 4 air forces, etc (I am speaking more of the small navy the Army has for amphibious uses, not the Coast Guard, a branch of service that has specific DHS duties).
So how would this work?
1. Consolidate all aviation into the Air Force. You can type qualify things like carrier qualifications, but a fighter pilot should be a fighter pilot. A Ground support pilot should be a ground support pilot, type qualified in the aircraft they are assigned to. Someone should be able to be transferred in and out of sea duty, provided they pass the (stringent) qualifications.
2. Consolidate the Marines and the Army. Marines should be a qualification, much like airborne is now. (I've been around both, they have a similar mind set.) Divisions should be situational, built how as needed. Brigades can keep the shoulder patch and main mission that the divisions now hold(1st Mar Div-1st Mar Bde; 1st Cav Div-1st Cav Bde; etc.) The brigades are a mix of combat battalions(Infantry, armor, Cav, Air Cav, Engineer, Artillery, Airborne Infantry, Marine Infantry, etc), support battalions/companies as needed. You could tailor them for what you would expect them to face.
None of this is easy, but should at least be discussed

Response by Cpl James R. " Jim" Gossett Jr made Nov 8 at 2020 9:46 AM

Cpl James R. " Jim" Gossett Jr — Sun, 08 Nov 2020 09:46:11 -0500

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!

Response by MGySgt Libo Hound made Mar 10 at 2021 5:40 AM

MGySgt Libo Hound — Wed, 10 Mar 2021 05:40:18 -0500

Until they develop a vaccine that will prevent soldiers from getting sick when they ingest crayons, Army folks won’t be able to keep up with us Leathernecks...

Response by GySgt Charles Klump made Jul 1 at 2021 7:38 PM

GySgt Charles Klump — Thu, 01 Jul 2021 19:38:39 -0400

No, each branch has a different mission and role in our military services.

Response by PFC Daniel Yates made Nov 13 at 2021 4:16 PM

PFC Daniel Yates — Sat, 13 Nov 2021 16:16:38 -0500

LMAO I see what you did here lol

Response by LCpl Sidney Green made Dec 25 at 2021 11:33 PM

LCpl Sidney Green — Sat, 25 Dec 2021 23:33:28 -0500

Absolutely not. Although to be honest, the MC has never completely she its connection to the Navy, so it is still a subset of that organization. I disagree with combining the services, however, for the simple reason that it puts far too much power and control under one banner. The temptation for the abuse of power is an inherent human quality, making it way too dangerous, even if their missions remained separate.

Response by PO3 Lawrence Taylor made Feb 17 at 2022 6:47 AM

PO3 Lawrence Taylor — Thu, 17 Feb 2022 06:47:45 -0500

No. The Marines would get sub-par medics from the Army instead of real Navy Corpsmen.

Response by 1SG Alfred Webster made Feb 18 at 2022 7:30 PM

1SG Alfred Webster — Fri, 18 Feb 2022 19:30:46 -0500

No, tthe missions and required measures are completely different.
Some missions are within the same areas but there's no reason to consolidate .

Response by Capt James Kent made Sep 30 at 2022 11:48 AM

Capt James Kent — Fri, 30 Sep 2022 11:48:49 -0400

Response by Capt James Kent made Sep 30 at 2022 11:50 AM

Capt James Kent — Fri, 30 Sep 2022 11:50:04 -0400

No.

Response by Sgt Ronald Weatherbee made Oct 22 at 2022 10:09 PM

Sgt Ronald Weatherbee — Sat, 22 Oct 2022 22:09:55 -0400

HELL NO!

Response by SFC David Reid, M.S, PHR, SHRM-CP, DTM made Oct 22 at 2022 10:56 PM

SFC David Reid, M.S, PHR, SHRM-CP, DTM — Sat, 22 Oct 2022 22:56:15 -0400

I would favor keeping all of the services intact! Each service has its own things that they excell at! Maybe we should consider considations of intra service bases. But keep each service separate in their current command and control functionality!

Response by MSG Thomas Currie made Oct 23 at 2022 11:14 AM

MSG Thomas Currie — Sun, 23 Oct 2022 11:14:36 -0400

Until recently I would have said that it would have been reasonable to move SOME of the Marine Corps to the Army. Now, with the recent changes in Marine Corps leadership, I don't think that would be useful -- because they now have leadership who seem to realize that the Marine Corps has a different mission from the Army and is not just a "more exclusive, better dressed" version of land combat soldiers.

The corruption of the Marine Corps mission began with WWI with the co-mingling of Army and Marine Corps units, it reached saturation levels in WWII when both services were used nearly interchangeably -- a mistake that continued through Korea and Vietnam.

Then the Navy decided that they didn't want the Marine Corps fulfilling its traditional role aboard ships, leaving the Marine Corps as just another land combat force.

The Marine Corps has a proud tradition and ethos, but those cannot survive alone -- the tradition and ethos evolved from the unique missions of the Marine Corps and their accomplishments in fulfilling those missions. Without a mission of their own the ethos that makes Marines different cannot be sustained.

The entire Defense structure needs to recognize and acknowledge that the Marine Corps is different because they have a different mission -- the entire Defense Department needs to respect the difference and stop trying to make the Army and Marine Corps be interchangeable.

Response by SSG Jack Scott made Oct 23 at 2022 5:26 PM

SSG Jack Scott — Sun, 23 Oct 2022 17:26:01 -0400

Hell no Soldier Boy! If Soldiers want to be Marines they can enlist and go to “Boot Camp” not basic training two totally different world! Why don’t you ask the Air Force if they want to be consolidated back into the Army Air Corps!

Response by AB Jon C made Oct 26 at 2022 10:21 PM

AB Jon C — Wed, 26 Oct 2022 22:21:13 -0400

Despite the hardships people endure to join one service vs the next, it is a simple fact that operations, cost, overhead and miss management of funds go, not to mention the streamlined process that could be developed by consolidating the forces, the services would only stand to improve the deadliness and ability to act when the time comes. communications between the different groups would greatly improve providing a greater readiness to act. I'm not saying to remove the forces, but lets count this up -

army : has army, has an airforce, has amphibious detach(navy).

navy : has navy, has army, has airforce.

marines: has an army, has navy, has an airforce

Airforce: has airforce, has ground support, has army

the above quick and dirty, and i know different groups have different purposes, but a lot of this stuff many of the different services train with each other - enter waste and miss use.
so why not consolidate, have one consolidated army, airforce and navy with clear chain of command per the spear of conflict, to better support the mission. you want to be a marine you join the army and after you pass basic you get a recommendation and go on to specialized train to be a marine, just like green beret, seal and so on. you want to fly helcopters or anything related to airpower u join the airforce and cross-train after basic and so on, removing the waste that goes with the dis organization the military currently has.

Response by PO2 Frederick Deraney made Nov 12 at 2022 5:08 PM

PO2 Frederick Deraney — Sat, 12 Nov 2022 17:08:21 -0500

No! Absolutely the Marine Corps and Army should never consider consolidation. Each respective component has a specific mission. The Marine corps is a smaller service designed to combine ground, aviation, and amphibious assets to seize or defend naval bases and to conduct such land operations as may be essential to the prosecution of a naval campaign. They are tasked primarily with first-on-the-scene missions, challenging missions that involve sea-land work combined with support for naval forces. The Marine Corps gets in and gets out as quickly as the mission allows. The army's mission is to fight and win our Nation's wars, by providing prompt, sustained land dominance.

Response by PO1 William Van Syckle made Dec 4 at 2022 12:31 PM

PO1 William Van Syckle — Sun, 04 Dec 2022 12:31:56 -0500

No. Each and every service has a purpose. Stop trying to change things. If you want to change things, take all MP’s, SF’s, and MA’s out of the services and make one big Military Police Force. It works for me…..

Response by PFC Edward Krinsky made Mar 12 at 2023 10:35 AM

PFC Edward Krinsky — Sun, 12 Mar 2023 10:35:08 -0400

NO, The Marines should be a unit unto itself. They have an "esprit de corps" you could never get from the Army. I served the the US Army, and have a great respect for the Marines. Leave them alone...they are a fantastic asset to this country......

Response by Maj John Bell made Aug 25 at 2023 9:40 PM

Maj John Bell — Fri, 25 Aug 2023 21:40:38 -0400

Absorbing that many soldiers into the Marines would really dilute the Marine Corps elite status.

Response by Cpl John Mason made Sep 2 at 2023 3:59 PM

Cpl John Mason — Sat, 02 Sep 2023 15:59:16 -0400

Yes we are all one, John Mason USMC 1968-1971 (Viet Nam)

Response by PO3 Robert Cassidy made Jun 3 at 2024 2:16 PM

PO3 Robert Cassidy — Mon, 03 Jun 2024 14:16:42 -0400

No. Each branch of the military has a targeted purpose. They all should have training in collaborating together. If all were led by one command and that command made decisions based upon personal reasons, everyone would be in trouble and we all would lose.

Response by SPC Jeffrey Ledford made Jul 25 at 2024 3:58 PM

SPC Jeffrey Ledford — Thu, 25 Jul 2024 15:58:48 -0400

No!! The government has ruined the Army with wokeness and DEI. Do not ruin the USMC!!!!

Response by SrA Ricardo Ramos made Jul 25 at 2024 8:02 PM

SrA Ricardo Ramos — Thu, 25 Jul 2024 20:02:57 -0400

This is an illogical question put forth to illicit “heat” and nothing more. Each branch of the DoD has a very specific mission with very specialized trained resources (labor, equipment and material) to achieve that mission. This is what is called a “straw man argument” which is fraught with error in its premise.

They might as well have said: "Should the Mouth and the Anus (or components of) consolidate? Think objectively. Traditions, camaraderie aside. Both are somewhat similarly more combat-oriented than other parts of the body. Answer practically without putting down either one of them.”

Nonsense