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
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
MSG Jeff Anderson
I will have to disagree with you there regarding scope. The fact is that the Army can put a brigade combat team from the 82nd on the ground faster than the Marines could move a Marine Expeditionary Brigade. Yes, a MEU because it is already forward deployed with a carrier battle group can be inserted very quickly but follow on Marine forces will take longer to arrive because additional amphibious ships would need to be moved to the embarkation location. Since the 82nd already has a brigade combat team on deployment standby all the time C-17s are already on call to support at short notice thus allowing the 82nd to get boots on the ground faster than the Marines beyond a MEU could surge.
Also, I think a lot of people misunderstand the word combine. There are many ways to combine things. Combining the Army and Marines would not mean that the Marines would lose their identity of specific mission. That would just mean realignment of command structure, support and many other issues that would have to be looked into. I cannot see any scenario where the Marines would be assimilate into the Army but just realigned.
Also, I think a lot of people misunderstand the word combine. There are many ways to combine things. Combining the Army and Marines would not mean that the Marines would lose their identity of specific mission. That would just mean realignment of command structure, support and many other issues that would have to be looked into. I cannot see any scenario where the Marines would be assimilate into the Army but just realigned.
(1)
(0)
SSG William Patton
MSG Anderson, I lack the knowledge of the current military capability and concede to your point. I was trying to make the point that each have a separate mission and for that reason, should stay separate. I do know that we have elements in Delta (SOG) that can deploy rapidly, and now as you describe, the 82nd, when the need arises. My heart is with the Army, but my knowledge about what we can or cannot do is based on experiences over 44 years ago.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
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!
Semper Fi Marines!
(2)
(0)
SPC(P) Jay Heenan
You really don't believe that do you? That one service couldn't train to respond to specific operational readiness? There may be a lot of reasons to have one service 'ludicrous', but operational readiness is certainly not one.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Barry Goodson
I am afraid you misinterpreted my words. I stated that "Each branch of service trains to respond to specific operational readiness" and that applies to any operation that specific branch is ordered to undertake. Separate branches of service in the U.S. create that atmosphere of readiness that one military service would not be able to offer. That, of course, is just my personal opinion. I have worked with other nations that employ a solitary military force and the bureaucracy belabors communications, which impedes readiness and the ability to react to immediate threats that our country's forces are able to respond to in a timely fashion.
Kindest Regards,
Kindest Regards,
(1)
(0)
Cpl Barry Goodson
Sgt. Buckner,
I appreciate your response. Actually, I think the origin of the question bears more mention than the rank of those who have perpetuated the idea. I have numerous friends who served in the U.S. Army, one of which saved my life during the Vietnam War, albeit indirectly, he was still responsible for keeping my unit from being wiped out that night. What I am trying to say is that those of us who have fought in combat recognize the need for all branches of service in the U.S. military. To suggest a change otherwise is a suggestion that bears no merit because each branch, during combat, serves a special service and we work together toward a common end.
The origin of the question, in my mind, stems from a man whose origin relates back to another country where all that country relies on is one national military force and one national police force; both of which continue to suffer through dissension in the ranks. During my tenure in Afghanistan, I served as Central Region Commander of the ANCOP program and learned a lot about the Afghan National Police as well as the Afghan National Army. As my language assistant assured me, the major issue with having a national police force only, is the fact that the people in that country are landlocked and remain loyal to the province of their origin. Therefore, the ANP are constantly plagued with officers abandoning their post; or as my LA referred to it, "...escaping", simply because they wanted to return to their province and serve to protect their families and loved ones in that province. We have that same challenge in the United States, where we have broached the idea of creating a national police force, which, I believe would be a mistake. People remain inherently loyal to their city, county, or state of origin with exception to serving in the military.
Creating and operating a national army is a much more successful concept because the purpose is training soldiers to defend the nation against any and all enemies, which encourages loyalty as long as that army remains focused and shies away from corruption. Of course, a landlocked country would have little knowledge concerning the need for strong national branches of military such as we have in the United States.
In closing, I suggest that we should ignore statements created by the ignorant and entertain change only from those who truly understand the need and purpose of all branches of service in the United States.
Semper Fidelis
Corporal Barry Goodson
CAP124 Vietnam 1968-1969
I appreciate your response. Actually, I think the origin of the question bears more mention than the rank of those who have perpetuated the idea. I have numerous friends who served in the U.S. Army, one of which saved my life during the Vietnam War, albeit indirectly, he was still responsible for keeping my unit from being wiped out that night. What I am trying to say is that those of us who have fought in combat recognize the need for all branches of service in the U.S. military. To suggest a change otherwise is a suggestion that bears no merit because each branch, during combat, serves a special service and we work together toward a common end.
The origin of the question, in my mind, stems from a man whose origin relates back to another country where all that country relies on is one national military force and one national police force; both of which continue to suffer through dissension in the ranks. During my tenure in Afghanistan, I served as Central Region Commander of the ANCOP program and learned a lot about the Afghan National Police as well as the Afghan National Army. As my language assistant assured me, the major issue with having a national police force only, is the fact that the people in that country are landlocked and remain loyal to the province of their origin. Therefore, the ANP are constantly plagued with officers abandoning their post; or as my LA referred to it, "...escaping", simply because they wanted to return to their province and serve to protect their families and loved ones in that province. We have that same challenge in the United States, where we have broached the idea of creating a national police force, which, I believe would be a mistake. People remain inherently loyal to their city, county, or state of origin with exception to serving in the military.
Creating and operating a national army is a much more successful concept because the purpose is training soldiers to defend the nation against any and all enemies, which encourages loyalty as long as that army remains focused and shies away from corruption. Of course, a landlocked country would have little knowledge concerning the need for strong national branches of military such as we have in the United States.
In closing, I suggest that we should ignore statements created by the ignorant and entertain change only from those who truly understand the need and purpose of all branches of service in the United States.
Semper Fidelis
Corporal Barry Goodson
CAP124 Vietnam 1968-1969
(0)
(0)
CWO3 (Join to see)
No Marine, You're dead wrong. Marines were first and foremost on board naval vessels during the Revolutionary War as sharp shooters. WE have a unique way of getting the Mission Accomplished and We demand a lot from our NCO's. It was the Higher Brass during WW2 that wanted to get rid of us. The only thing that stopped them is the National Security Act of 1947. 3 Divs/3 Air Wings / and 3 Reserve Components.Â
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
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?
(2)
(0)
SFC Charles S.
Awesome turn around and Yes, that is exactly it. Politics have never fully understood the military mindset or objectives and have no real fact to base their premise upon. This question you bring would be met by them with the same impact that it hits us the Military about this topic. Good One!
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
SGT Mike Marino
I agree. I was active in the 80's Military Police academy the old Ft,Mcclellan. The Basic alone was tougher 16 weeks that included a shock phase straight through till the end of training, constant dogging from the Drill SGTs. U didn't get anything past them , Put in lockers and thrown down stairs ,insane stuff that hardened you. Then the M.P Academy.Today I hear the recruits can use cell phones and in videos I see the recruits in basic training smiling????? Gd i and the others were miserable, If we smiled, their would be insanity from the drill Sgts.They stood right next to us while we were taking our Military photos to make sure we were straight faced.lolo, Now It seems like a sports team. The drills seem more like coaches. What a shame. Would like to see the Army Basic training get harder than it is today. It builds character.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
CWO3 (Join to see)
WO1 Houston Williams, this is CWO3, USMC, (Ret.) Combat Disabled. Why not have the 1st IDF ( BIG RED ONE), Join our Blue Diamond. Look, WO1, if you want to stay as a WO1 I would really suggest you read about your AUS and OUR USMC History. We don't have OUR USMC War Memorial in D.C. over looking the Arlington Cemetery for nothing. Semper Fi Mac.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
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
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
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Let's hope that "if" doesn't happen, different mindsets = different branches.
- Semper Fi
- Semper Fi
(0)
(0)
CWO3 (Join to see)
It won't happen as long as each branch of services do their mission as stated in the 1947 National Security Act. But for the last 60 years plus the Marine had its share of Land Warfare. Each Branch has a unique history and traditions. The Marines are amphibous, soldiers are land lovers, Air Force are Air Components and our Beloved U.S. Navy help us get to our designation to carry out our mission. Lest we not forget our sister service the USCG. Though they maybe under the Homeland Security, they also have a very unique mission. Semper Pratis.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google