Posted on May 28, 2014
Should Army and Marines (or components of) consolidate?
1.36M
6.44K
3.13K
298
286
12
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.
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.
Troops
Soldiers
DoD
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 1533
28
28
0
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.
(28)
(0)
SFC Mark Merino
It has been 2 months. I hope things have calmed down now. I got on this thread because recently, there was a murder that happened because of inter-service rivalry. What a waste. No one should concede that another service is better. No one will advocate stronger than someone who wore the uniform. All that matters is that we are family. Friendly jabs aside.
(5)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
Yeah, that murder was pretty messed up. The conflict had been brewing for awhile. The Marine initiated the fight by throwing a punch and the Army guy responded by pulling out his knife, and slashing the Marine on the face and across the throat. Cheap shot and not exactly chivalrous bringing a knife to a fist fight. Now he has to ask himself, as he spends his days in abstinence, rotting in prison, "Was it worth it?"
(2)
(0)
LTC John Wilson
Respect is the key word to use in this forum. Every man, woman that wears the uniform, volunteered to do so. I salute each and every one of you and would be proud to serve as your Co, or as your subordinate. God bless the USA!
(2)
(0)
SrA Hal Nelson
Well said. While I respect the the history and exploits of the Marines, I do not believe they do anything any better than select combat Army units. For all their success in the Pacific in WW2, the Army managed to win Europe without them.
(0)
(0)
27
27
0
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!
(27)
(0)
26
26
0
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.
(26)
(0)
26
26
0
25
25
0
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.
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.
(25)
(0)
PO1 Jim Edwards
As a Seabee, many of times we would do JLOTS. Joint Logistics Over The Sea with the Army ships/personnel. We would facilitate a beach head, and ferry their equipment/containers onto the beach. We also did RO?RO (Roll on/Roll off) with wheeled vehicles with them. They rode the ship, not operated the ship.....
(0)
(0)
GySgt Jon White
The Corps has not been "a branch of the Navy" since the National Security Act of 1947. Both us and the Air Force split away and became separate branches.
The difference is, the Air Force got a Department of the Air Force, whereas The Corps remained under the Department of the Navy. This was done because the Navy and The Corps' mission was too intertwined to do anything different.
The Army and Air Force each have their own Departments as their missions are so diifferent.
Our Commandant is a co-equal member of the Joint Chiefs, just like the the CNO is. Both of them answer to the SecNav. The Commandant is not subordinate to the CNO, and The Corps has not been "a branch of the Navy" since 1947. Both services' civilian control is The Department of the Navy, again, we ARE NOT "a branch of the Navy".
I get tired of having to explain this to people.
The difference is, the Air Force got a Department of the Air Force, whereas The Corps remained under the Department of the Navy. This was done because the Navy and The Corps' mission was too intertwined to do anything different.
The Army and Air Force each have their own Departments as their missions are so diifferent.
Our Commandant is a co-equal member of the Joint Chiefs, just like the the CNO is. Both of them answer to the SecNav. The Commandant is not subordinate to the CNO, and The Corps has not been "a branch of the Navy" since 1947. Both services' civilian control is The Department of the Navy, again, we ARE NOT "a branch of the Navy".
I get tired of having to explain this to people.
(1)
(0)
LTC John Wilson
Unfortunates someone misspoke, the Marines were an integral part of the Navy and will always be an integral part of the Navy. However, the Corps has been recognize within the new Military terminology as the Department of the Navy and Marines. It has its separate Commandant as the Navy has it's Separate Admiral to be aboard the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon. Once separate and unequal with the Navy, the Marine corps is Separate and Equal of the Navy since they can now discuss all Operations that use the Marine corps. Together they are one fierce fighting machine.
(0)
(0)
LTC John Wilson
CPT Bob Coleman - Do we really want to go there? They do not have the same combat ability nor operational status. But you are right the Army has more Ships, don't know about the aircraft! LOL
(0)
(0)
23
23
0
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.
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.
(23)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
1LT (Join to see), That's a line taken from the movie Avatar.
In Avatar, Jake Sully, the Marine, strays from the group he is providing security for, gets chased by a large predator, and gets lost in the jungle on Pandora. He is rescued by Neytiri, a Na'vi female. She was going to kill him but got an auspicious sign from Eywa (their deity) so she takes him to Home Tree, where her clan called the Omaticaya live. There, Neytiri's father, the clan Chief, is to decide what Jake's fate should be. He begins interrogating Jake and asks him who he is. Jake responds, I'm Jake Sully, a warrior from the Jarhead clan. The Na'vi are leaning toward killing Jake when Mo'at, Neytiri's mother and clan spiritual leader, enters the scene and begins her own interrogation. She asks Jake why he came. Jake Sully tells her he came to learn their ways. Mo'at replies, “Others have tried to learn and failed. It is haaaard to fill a cup which is already full.” To which Jake responds “My cup is empty.” Seeing that he might be teachable, Mo'at assigns Neytiri to train Jake in the ways of the Na'vi.
That gives you the statement in context. Those whose cups are full can't learn anything because there's no room to fill them with more, but those whose cups are empty can be filled.
People whose minds are closed aren't open to what other people have to say. They aren't interested in taking the time to look up links you post or bother to digest what you tell them. Their only interest is in telling you what their opinion is.
In Avatar, Jake Sully, the Marine, strays from the group he is providing security for, gets chased by a large predator, and gets lost in the jungle on Pandora. He is rescued by Neytiri, a Na'vi female. She was going to kill him but got an auspicious sign from Eywa (their deity) so she takes him to Home Tree, where her clan called the Omaticaya live. There, Neytiri's father, the clan Chief, is to decide what Jake's fate should be. He begins interrogating Jake and asks him who he is. Jake responds, I'm Jake Sully, a warrior from the Jarhead clan. The Na'vi are leaning toward killing Jake when Mo'at, Neytiri's mother and clan spiritual leader, enters the scene and begins her own interrogation. She asks Jake why he came. Jake Sully tells her he came to learn their ways. Mo'at replies, “Others have tried to learn and failed. It is haaaard to fill a cup which is already full.” To which Jake responds “My cup is empty.” Seeing that he might be teachable, Mo'at assigns Neytiri to train Jake in the ways of the Na'vi.
That gives you the statement in context. Those whose cups are full can't learn anything because there's no room to fill them with more, but those whose cups are empty can be filled.
People whose minds are closed aren't open to what other people have to say. They aren't interested in taking the time to look up links you post or bother to digest what you tell them. Their only interest is in telling you what their opinion is.
(2)
(0)
1LT (Join to see)
I did recognize that line ... my response, tongue in check, was to this ... "the other person spends all their time [while you're speaking to them] thinking about what they're going to tell you next instead of listening to you? " LOL
(0)
(0)
(2)
(0)
SGT Anthony Bussing
yeah, taking Kuwait city and fighting in the oil fields from the boarder to the city...yah, we didnt do jack crap in Desert Storm...Im guessing the good major has deep seeded issues with the Corps because a jarhead stole his girl or something...maybe beathim up and took his lunch money...http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/marine/marn_ref/n06en017/d0531601.htm
(0)
(0)
22
22
0
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.
"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.
(22)
(0)
Capt Andrew Cosgrove
Every place the Marines have fought in recent times the enemy differentiated them from the army. It usually was the black boots or the "white sleeves" but for some reason the enemy was concerned with differentiating the two services. I guess the Corps' public relations machine is just that much better that it gets into the 3rd world more so than the army's...
(4)
(0)
(1)
(0)
22
20
2
HELL NO!!! . . . the Army needs somebody to look up to!!! :-) :-) :-) :-)
(22)
(2)
SGT John W Lugo
No, they should not consolidate. If we did that then the Army Medic's wouldn't have no one to recover in the battle field, Ha Ha
(1)
(0)
MSgt Manuel Diaz
The US Army only looks up to the US Marines when the Army kicked the Marine ass up there. ;>]
(1)
(0)
(3)
(0)
18
18
0
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.
(18)
(0)
Sgt Michael Baselice
I am so glad to see Active Duty Army Officers spending countless hours responding to this thread.. Tax dollars are hard at work here. If the Army trained in the same capabilities as Marines as much as they beat their chest about an ability that they have, it might lead to a more cogent argument. All I have to say here is - ability does not translate into capability. The Army does NOT have the same CAPABILITY or demonstrated proficiency that MARINES have - PERIOD.
(3)
(0)
Sgt Joseph Baker
MAJ Carl Ballinger - You keep trotting out that same lame story about Secretary Gates as if he alone in all our great nation is the guy to answer for the Marines. The spirit of the Corps would not remain with the Army, because the Army never possessed it, and doubtful they ever will.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Sgt Michael Baselice you’re right it doesn’t have the capability or demonstrated proficiency. Unless you count historical or empirical data. I could break it down for you if you’d really like but I don’t really have that much time on my hands. Speaking of chest beating though, that reminds me of a conversation with a buddy of mine that was an infantry marine. He pointed out and it consistently holds true for both branches, that the most virulent nonsense as it comes to the rivalry always comes from soft skills. It really amazes me how as SIGNAL you can talk about ability not translating into capabilities. It doesn’t need to translate, they’re synonyms, they mean the same thing. To have an ability, is to have a capability. I thought signals were supposed to be smart.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google