Should Army and Marines (or components of) consolidate?

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.