Should Army and Marines (or components of) consolidate?

I have to agree with the SSGT Luck on this one. The army and marines have a different function. Where there is room for training and exercises to be conducted together then by all means work together.

Not only NO but HELL NO!!! ARMY stands for ain’t ready for Marines yet. There is a reason for that.

There's really no honest way to answer that question WITHOUT going into traditions and camaraderie. The Army and Marines work differently and both have too many traditions and too much pride in their service to be jelled together into one service. Beyond the different traditions, uniforms and (certain) standards, there are distinctly different mindsets.

I think we're being trolled on this question. It sounds like the kind of idea some civilian bean counter in the Pentagon (who'd never served a day in uniform) would come up with.

All one uniform. All fight the same wars. Same weapons (minor exceptions). Reduce costs supply issues.

different missions require different standards.

No because the marine corps and army missions are different. Marines are an amphibious force that are designed specifically to eliminate the enemy. The army is an occupational force. They provide all around defense for the country. While similar in combat action, the goals of the branches are different.

Oh, HELL NO! Marines are Marines; not Soldiers! They're nothing like us, and they can't be like us, unless they earn their EGA, PERIOD!!! I'm not the only Marine that will say this!

1st you have to realize that there is a reason that they are different... they have similarities but a different reason for existence... the marines exist for land operations for the navy... such as island hopping... they are a reaction as well as a protection force for the navy.. the army isn’t ocean borne.. they aren’t meant for a island raider.. the army is a ground pound and own force... ..

No

I can say, after serving in both the Marine Corps and the Army Reserve, NO! Leave the components separate. I went to Parris Island for Boot Camp not knowing where in the hell I'd end up going to my MOS schooling at, but Soldiers 9 times out of 10 go to Boot Camp and AIT at the same place. The Discipline that I learned at Boot Camp and the new Marines if dropped off into a Army Unit, there would be so much trouble. Marines are a different breed and we let people know the day we graduated Boot Camp and it wouldn't be good. I see new Soldiers coming out of AIT, with little to no discipline and a Marine First Sergeant would eat them alive.

NO!

The purpose of the Marine Corps is to give the Department of the Navy a land task force.

And since congress has the express permission, by the constitution, to keep and maintain a Navy, but not to keep and maintain an army, as it is expressly limited to funding an army for up to 2 years at a time; What i think we need is to put the regular army back in the box, and use the national guard for what it was intended to be as expressed by the second amendment.

A well regulated militia, being necessary for a FREE STATE (note it doesn't say country it says state, as in the state of Virginia). the right of the people to keep and bear arms a shall not be infringed.

And for all you ignorant people that are going to say I am reading it wrong, i invite you to see what kind of units were used to fight all the wars up until Korea.

The 82nd All American, is all American because the 82n Expeditionary force sent to France in WWI was compromised of units from every state.

The 54th Massachusetts portrayed int he movie Glory was a national guard unit.

Hell, you couldn't enlist in a California unit form New York before WWII. if you wanted to be on the west coast you had to move.

Read our military history and you will understand why the services are separate. We don't need to recreate the mistakes of the past.

Read our military history and you will see why we have the separate services. Combining would just recreate the mistakes of the past.

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.

No

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.