Should Army and Marines (or components of) consolidate?

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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..