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
0
0
0
The only way I could see it work is to adapt the marine corps basic training that makes all training uniformed hard core. Then train them for their jobs which I might add is already being done in a lot of fields. Then you have to realize that not everyone wants to be as hard core as the Marines so they join different branches for that reason. I'm not saying there aren't hard core soldiers in every branch but if you look at this honestly you know the answer. But then they would all be Marines. LOL
So is that what they will be called?
So is that what they will be called?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
At first glance, it seems a reasonable question. But the two missions are just not similar enough to warrant a merger. USMC is a rapid reaction force, tasked with quick light, little armour or artillery, as a get in and hold the line until heavier equipped are available for the long haul troops are deployed. Although the Army has "light" battalions and divisions their equipment, compared to the Marines, is not light and reaction time is usually more than a few hours.
Just can't see what will be gained and lost by such a move.
Ken Klein (PFC USMC/ SP5 USAR)
Just can't see what will be gained and lost by such a move.
Ken Klein (PFC USMC/ SP5 USAR)
(0)
(0)
1
0
1
No. Should just get rid of the marines. The army already does what they do and more. So just dx them and give army Their missions..
(1)
(1)
0
0
0
No... and being an Army Veteran who trained with all branches, it isn't about who's better. It's about differences in traditions. The Navy would do better to reabsorb the Marine Corp and the Army to reabsorb the Air Force as both have like traditions that can work well for one another. The Army and Marine Corp would clash in many ways between doctrine and attitude.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
No disrespect intended, but I feel that the Marines and the Navy is a better match. I feel that the DOD and the Commanders of and their E-9 should come together and decide the best and most cost effective method of accomplishing the mission. Not retired recliner intelligence or our sorry group of politicians that have never had a job running anything.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Keep the Marines with the Navy and send the Air Force back to the Army. It worked well that way.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Having served in the infantry I'd say yes but trim the fat on both and adopt ranger mentality on it.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
No, and here's the reason.
The Marine Corps falling under the Navy gives the Nation a CONSTITUTIONAL advantage.
We are required to "raise" and Army (Art 1 section 8, Army Clause). We are required to "maintain" a Navy (Art 1, section 8, Navy Clause). As such, by the Marines falling under the Navy, as a Corps, we are not subject to the same restrictions that the Army is.
It is not that the Army cannot accomplish Marine missions (and they are littoral missions, as opposed to amphibious missions in the modern world), nor is it that Marines cannot accomplish Army missions. We are both capable of doing either. We are not "tailored" to do so however, nor should we be.
Marines, by birth, have a philosophical outlook that is designed around the taking of objectives. We are mission oriented, which changes the scale we operate when compared to an organization like the Army. The Army's philosophy is just "different," not better or worse, just different. Excluding Okinawa, we don't really "occupy" countries for 50+ years at a time. And when you look at Okinawa, we rotate existing units through there to create the impression that we do. We're a constantly mobile force, as opposed to a defensive one.
This gives us a very distinct advantage when it comes to small level operations. Could the Army do it? Sure. Should the Army do it? No. It takes 20~ Marine support personnel foe every grunt on the ground. It takes probably double that for every Soldier. The advantages of scale are just too great.
The Marine Corps falling under the Navy gives the Nation a CONSTITUTIONAL advantage.
We are required to "raise" and Army (Art 1 section 8, Army Clause). We are required to "maintain" a Navy (Art 1, section 8, Navy Clause). As such, by the Marines falling under the Navy, as a Corps, we are not subject to the same restrictions that the Army is.
It is not that the Army cannot accomplish Marine missions (and they are littoral missions, as opposed to amphibious missions in the modern world), nor is it that Marines cannot accomplish Army missions. We are both capable of doing either. We are not "tailored" to do so however, nor should we be.
Marines, by birth, have a philosophical outlook that is designed around the taking of objectives. We are mission oriented, which changes the scale we operate when compared to an organization like the Army. The Army's philosophy is just "different," not better or worse, just different. Excluding Okinawa, we don't really "occupy" countries for 50+ years at a time. And when you look at Okinawa, we rotate existing units through there to create the impression that we do. We're a constantly mobile force, as opposed to a defensive one.
This gives us a very distinct advantage when it comes to small level operations. Could the Army do it? Sure. Should the Army do it? No. It takes 20~ Marine support personnel foe every grunt on the ground. It takes probably double that for every Soldier. The advantages of scale are just too great.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
MAJ Thomas Person Thank you. The flip side is also true. For long term operations, Army "scale" is just too powerful to overcome. When we talk about bringing the "full force of the US Military" down on someone, we're talking about invading them with the Army. Sure a MEF can do a passable job, but... 1 Div + support just doesn't compare to the Army's SEVERAL Divisions, with some left over.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I have nothing against the US Army, but consolidation of the two forces in my opinion I could not support. I'm a Marine and the Marine Corps is what it is because of the,"Few," who make it. You have to be a Marine to understand. I don't have anything against the other armed forces because in the end during war time we are glad to see each other. Semper Fi.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google