Should Army and Marines (or components of) consolidate?

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 ...

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!

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.

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?

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".

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

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.

No. The mission of the Marines is different from that of the Army.

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.