Should Army and Marines (or components of) consolidate?

Would it help at all to recall that the Army tried for years--thru Congress--to simply eliminate the USMC? In the mid-1950s, after similar post-WWII & Korea skirmishes, senior Army & Marines took the fight to Congress but eventually agreed to some bilateral reorg. that ended the debate.

However, the whole sordid affair repulsed Pres. Eisenhower, & when it came time to name a new CMC, Eisenhower nominated Shoup, who had remained above the fray. Of course, then Eisenhower earned the enmity of more senior Marine generals, some of which resigned or retired in protest.

A reminder that 60-some yr ago, Army & Marine generals would have found that "one team, one fight" mantra laughable.

The biggest difference between Army and the Marines is that the Army is a sustainment force whereas the Marines is for when it absolutely, positively, without a doubt has to be blown up overnight.

I have absolutely nothing against the Marines. I have several friends that have served honorably and are Marines. I am Retired Army. We each have our separate jobs and the Marine Corps maintain a very high standard. There is absolutely no reason the bring these two branches together. Sure we make fun of one another, but I have a huge amount of respect for them as well. They have time honored traditions just as we do. There just isn’t a valid reason to make one or both compromise their traditions to adapt to the others.

I’ll. Step off of the soapbox and let someone else chime in.

My opinion for what it is worth, we as service members all have a job and most are excellent at it. The Marines have there and Army there's. While both are similar. I served 31 years in the Army and have seen a lot of changes. Overall I don't see the Army having the discipline or standards that the Marines do. I know i will catch flak over that statement but oh well. Like the old saying goes " if it ain't broke don't fix it".

Heck no we don't enough crayons in the Army to feed them not even for snacks! And besides since they WEREN'T part of the largest amphibious assault in the history of modern day warfare (D-Day) and no one swings on a rope from one ship to another to take it over haven't they outlived their mission? RLTW

Every other day I see more and more Historical traditions scrapped for 'political correctness'/and personal agenda. USMC has the sea-to-land mission. USA is a ground and air to ground force. Leave each branch to do what they do BEST?

As a former Corpsman, and a current Soldier, I have seen all 3 branches up close and personal. My answer would unequivocally would be no. Marines are proud because it’s an earned title, which made me proud to be a Corpsman. I don’t see that often in the Army, rarely do I hear Soldiers identity themselves as Soldiers. Most identify themselves as their MOS. In the civilian sector everyone under the DoD is a Soldier. Not the case in the military community. There would be backlash aplenty if these 2 forces ever merged.

The Marines have always been a component of the Department of the Navy and there is no need to put them under the Department of the Army. Primarily because the Army would still have to have troops on board Navy ships. As it is both entities are under one department and makes for smoother operation. Having served in the Gator Navy along side of Marines, we are one big family and I for one don't want or see a need for the Marines to be taken from the Navy and given to a different branch of service that has slack standards when compared to the USMC. Leave it as it is.

This isn't the first time this question has been asked. And to me the answer should remain, no.
It boils down to service doctrine. It's inevitable that someone will point out the Normandy Invasion as an example of the Army's ability to perform an amphibious assault. But there will be no reference to the Marine Corps development of the amphibious assault or the necessary equipment the Corps came up with. Nor of the Corps training the Army command.
That all came into being because of the Marine Corps "assault doctrine". And we have seen recent benefits of that doctrine in the development of the Osprey. The other branches gave up on the Osprey years ago. The Corps stuck with it because of the obvious benefits within the "assault doctrine".
And as a result all of the branches will now share the benefits of the Marine Corps doctrine.

Currebtly the corps comes under dept of Navy.. soldier and marines basically perfom like each other so why not. It would save big bucks on an unneeded upper echelon system providing fundings for troops and equipment for the missions performed instead of political bs. Same as by putting the Air Force with the Navy.all pilots should be able to take off and land on an aircraft carrier so you get more needed equipment and troops to perform the missions. No one wants to be the one cut and completely understood. However, funds and personnel can be put to better uses to support real training and missions for combat instead of rubbing political noses and back sides of the upper echelons to provide a life of luxery for those that need to actually be part of the military work force itself.give me a good marine with his rifle rather than a marine officer attending social functions anytime. Call it Army or Marine who cares, give me a well proficient and trained combat and security force any day

"God made Rangers so the Marines could have someone to look up to!" LOL