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.
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 1533
Read our military history and you will see why we have the separate services. Combining would just recreate the mistakes of the past.
(1)
(0)
Why does the Army always want to be like Marines? Let them earn their own history. The psychology is different The Marines have been a sea going military unit since 1775. The army is a land military unit. Marines are taught to attack at once and to hold their ground. The Army has to think about it before they attack. It drives Marine commanders nuts. I went to the leadership academy in the army after spending 4yrs in the Corp, We had a field problem. I was a Squad Leader moving along side a dirt trail. A machine gun started firing. I told the Squad lets get!em. We took off running in the brush on the side of the road and almost caught them. At the recap afterwards the instructor said." I!m not saying your wrong, but you should have waited for the rest of the unit to catch up. I did what I learned in the Marine corp. The element of supprise is very important be where the enemy doesn't expect you. I know in Iraq and Afghanistan Army units were assigned to Marine Units and they requested to wear Marine corp patches on their Uniforms. This made a lot of marines angry because Marines don't wear unit patches. The Commandant said since the army has a proud history of wearing unit patches, he would grant them the privilege of wearing Marine unit patches. Semper Fi.
(1)
(0)
At first the idea of consolidating all branches under one umbrella sounds like the ideal solution for our Department of Defense and its fighting branches. Then, there is the realization that each branch was formed to perform different missions and require different training to excel at that mission.
I was a young Marine and I served in the Corps for six years. I loved the Esprit De Corps and the friendship that was formed as a fighting force. My morale was sky high and I believed I could whip anyone anywhere.
But alas, I left the Marines to join the U.S. Army and take advantage of many of the things the Marine Corps couldn't or wouldn't offer me. I went to OCS, Jump School, SFOC, Winter Warfare Training in Alaska, and finally Language School, before being sent to Vietnam. Being with Army Special Forces made me proud to accept a challenge and complete it successfully and feel the pride in doing so. Leading elite forces engendered me with the pride that I was capable of leading such a unique force.
When in the Corps I tried my best to be part of Force Recon. I would train for it, take the test and pass and only be told that I could not transfer to Force Recon because I was in a Critical Military Occupation Specialty. After three refusals, I left for the Army, where I got to get the training I felt was uplifting to me. I wanted to be in the action, and I wanted to further my abilities as I grew with the service. The Army gave me those chances.
Now, I will not bad mouth the Corps. They did their best with the budget they had and they did one excellent job. The Army had a larger budget and offered more chances to expand my horizons. I would not consolidate these branches. I would make sure they received adequate funding so they could successfully complete their missions and allow their personnel to be the best they can be. Officers and enlisted should be challenged to do their best in everything they do. They should also feel the pride in their branch that makes them want to be better than yesterday and even more qualified tomorrow.
I was a young Marine and I served in the Corps for six years. I loved the Esprit De Corps and the friendship that was formed as a fighting force. My morale was sky high and I believed I could whip anyone anywhere.
But alas, I left the Marines to join the U.S. Army and take advantage of many of the things the Marine Corps couldn't or wouldn't offer me. I went to OCS, Jump School, SFOC, Winter Warfare Training in Alaska, and finally Language School, before being sent to Vietnam. Being with Army Special Forces made me proud to accept a challenge and complete it successfully and feel the pride in doing so. Leading elite forces engendered me with the pride that I was capable of leading such a unique force.
When in the Corps I tried my best to be part of Force Recon. I would train for it, take the test and pass and only be told that I could not transfer to Force Recon because I was in a Critical Military Occupation Specialty. After three refusals, I left for the Army, where I got to get the training I felt was uplifting to me. I wanted to be in the action, and I wanted to further my abilities as I grew with the service. The Army gave me those chances.
Now, I will not bad mouth the Corps. They did their best with the budget they had and they did one excellent job. The Army had a larger budget and offered more chances to expand my horizons. I would not consolidate these branches. I would make sure they received adequate funding so they could successfully complete their missions and allow their personnel to be the best they can be. Officers and enlisted should be challenged to do their best in everything they do. They should also feel the pride in their branch that makes them want to be better than yesterday and even more qualified tomorrow.
(1)
(0)
Absolutely not, they each have a separate wartime mission and each are individually proud of their heritage. We have done just fine with two separate branches, through countless wars.
"When it ain't broke.... no need to fix it".
"When it ain't broke.... no need to fix it".
(1)
(0)
While cutting back on administrative burdens would be amazing, there's better ways of doing it than this. At their core doctrine, the Army and Marines have totally different purposes. While these doctrines support each other, each is equally important to the success of the other individually as well. Trying to merge the two would be more problematic than problem solving than pretty much any other possible plan to administratively streamline their operation. Then there's the pride and tradition that enters the equation which completely seals the deal against this being a good idea.
(1)
(0)
Please, No! The two units are not the same. I only did two years in the army, but spent one of those years at Quang Tri combat base working with and next to Marines. Marines see themselves as all-fight all the time. They pride themselves, correctly, on the fact every man (Or woman, relax, I was in in 1968. Women weren’t a factor then.) is an infantryman. The Army fights, but does lots of other thing too. I was an 11B, but I have read that the Army has over one hundred MOS designations. A blatant example is that the Army has hospitals, doctors, dentists, and nurses. The Marines doesn’t even have its own medical corpsman. Let the two units be. They’re both what they’re supposed to be.
(1)
(0)
The Marine Corps. has a vital strategic purpose: a true global response force. While the Army has XVIII ABC, that’d Be like comparing Grapefruits to Key Limes.
The Army, culturally, would be hurt by this. We already have many Army Officers who conflate capability for purpose. The Army exists to “choke out” an opponent, while the Marine Corps exists to make an opponent reconsider getting into a full fight. That’s why our GRF has days for logistic considerations vs. weeks for a MEW - our GRF is just the torch for the rest of the Army.
That said, the Air Force is a duplication of purpose with the Navy. Both are strategic force projectors - one just does it exclusively in the air.
The Army, culturally, would be hurt by this. We already have many Army Officers who conflate capability for purpose. The Army exists to “choke out” an opponent, while the Marine Corps exists to make an opponent reconsider getting into a full fight. That’s why our GRF has days for logistic considerations vs. weeks for a MEW - our GRF is just the torch for the rest of the Army.
That said, the Air Force is a duplication of purpose with the Navy. Both are strategic force projectors - one just does it exclusively in the air.
(1)
(0)
No, and the only people that ask these questions are fools. Look at history and what each force is charged with and you’d just make everything slower. Why not just make everything under one then; answer, because it’s stupid and will dumb things down and competition will be lost.
Just because the past few wars have seen the army and marine corps doing nearly identical jobs and duties shouldn’t bring about ideas of mergers. Though who knows, Marines always get the job done, maybe we should absorb our floating taxi company. Maybe ships will stop hitting other ships
Just because the past few wars have seen the army and marine corps doing nearly identical jobs and duties shouldn’t bring about ideas of mergers. Though who knows, Marines always get the job done, maybe we should absorb our floating taxi company. Maybe ships will stop hitting other ships
(1)
(0)
Sgt (Join to see)
PO3 Jason M. No I was talking about the Navy... Never herd of that joke? That the navy is a billion dollar taxi service for the Marine Corps?
(0)
(0)
Sgt (Join to see)
PO3 Jason M. It was sarcasm that was meant to be taken as serious as this question, a bunch of hot air.
(0)
(0)
Here is the Thing. they tried this once before. President Roosevelt before World War II. Failed Miserably. One thing Roosevelt found out. He couldn't send the Army or the Navy to guard Embassies had something to do with International Law. The Canadians for example use the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to Guard their Embassies and the French I believe use the French National Gendarmerie. Because of a "loop hole" in International Law this is why the USMC is used to Guard Embassies to my Understanding. Legally they are not an Army and they are not a Navy. Because of this Status they can do things that the Army and Navy Can't do. If anyone has further information on this subject I would enjoy reading it.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next


Troops
Soldiers
DoD
