Posted on May 28, 2014
PO1 Master-at-Arms
1.36M
6.44K
3.13K
298
286
12
Should army and marines consolidate
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.
Posted in these groups: Cf1cbe80 TroopsAmerican flag soldiers SoldiersDod color DoD
Edited >1 y ago
Avatar feed
Responses: 1533
SSgt Martial Arts Instructor
0
0
0
All pride/personal/emotional considerations aside, the U.S. does not need a Marine Corps. Most countries don't have one for a reason. The land assets could be absorbed into the Army, the air into the Navy/Air Force, and the amphibious role could go to the Army/Navy. The "lessen bureaucracy" argument doesn't hold water because the bigger the bureaucracy is the less efficient it is, so getting rid of the USMC, but increasing the size of the bureaucracies in the other services would actually make them worse.

The real argument for keeping the USMC is compelling, and why we'd hurt ourselves to get rid of it: the MAGTF. The Marine Air-Ground Task Force is a doctrinally exercised unit that has no parallel in any other branch. The MAGTF is a complete, self-contained warfighting unit. As the name implies, it has the ground and air (and usually naval, if required [and yes, they're provided by the Navy, but the Navy's amphibious ships only exist to be used by the USMC]) forces to conduct a small-scale armed conflict all by itself. A MAGTF can stand up quickly, be anywhere, and the bringing the pain in a timeline that is vastly shorter than the other services could put together. The air component can get air superiority and/or begin conducting strikes faster than the Air Force (though not necessarily do it better), clearing the way for ground forces either by land, amphibiously or by air mobility. This is practiced regularly and in fact we keep deploying Marine Expeditionary Units (MEUs) multiple times per year, just to project our power and to keep up practice on deploying MAGTFs.

An aircraft carrier sitting of your coast is a hell of a way to say, "we will blow up your shit." A MEU sitting off your coast instead says, "we will come into your home, drag you out by your hair, and kick your ass into an undisclosed prison." And that's the best outcome.

In closing, the Marine Corps will take something that needs taken, but it's not as good as the Army at holding it. It's truly America's 911 force.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
CW2 Scott Quaife
0
0
0
leave this one alone. I have seen , Read, been apart of changes while in the Army. Sorry, the Marines have their agenda, the Army it's own. Next question.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SFC It Specialist
0
0
0
I could see them both falling under the same command. But both branches have too much history to do away with either.
(0)
Comment
(0)
SGT Mike Marino
SGT Mike Marino
>1 y
SfC, took my OSUT training at Ft. Mcclellan. If you on that base, your getting good dose of contamination. Its worse worse than Camp legune. Look into online. Toxic Soldier.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
1SG William Svoboda
0
0
0
Ok, let's put aside our individual service traditions and pride for a moment and realize the fact that we are ground warriors that can be one ground force easily. As well as all air assets can be one air force and all sea assets can b ed one sea force. We have separate missions because we were GIVEN seperate missions. Unique service speak and principles of leadership implementation are all that divide us except for the traditions. Conveniently forces must adapt to survive and the facts are my Marine brothers is that there is a ceiling for end strength which is the foundation for the Few, etc motto. We are warriors and we can succeed in any environment under any circumstances TOGETHER!
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SPC Matthew Morris
0
0
0
Objectively, yes, I think the USMC and Army could combine. I would not get rid of the "Marines" however. If the Marines became a specialized unit with specialized training (exactly what they are already), it would not hurt the image or specialization of the Marines. Think going out for Marines instead of Airborne. Not only that, money would be saved because specialization is not necessary in the non-infantry jobs. Tankers are still tankers, artillery is still artillery, commo is still commo, etc.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
MSG(P) Owner/Operator
0
0
0
Not just no. But hell no. Their missions and concept of operations are so completely different. Their training methods and missions are vastly different as is their OPTEMPO and motivations. The Marines have their job and they do it extremely well. As does the Army. Leave they be. If it isn't broke, don't fix it!!
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SPC David Bosquez
0
0
0
I have to say that with a lot of the posts being from strength management side of consolidation, and the fighting force nearly being the same, that might work. But having a Marine stepfather for many years and also friends who joined the Marine Corps around the time I enlisted in the Army, consolidating would do nothing more than hurt morale for both sides of of the consolidation. Marines are very proud of their eagle, globe and anchor, and the moment a Soldier dons that beret for the first time, there is a huge swelling of pride for yourself and what you have accomplished as well. You take that pride away and you'll lose most of what made that Marine or Soldier who they were. After all, what does a warrior have if not their pride?
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
LCpl Christopher Johnson
0
0
0
No
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
COL Jon Thompson
0
0
0
Putting aside the reality that this would never happen, you can make an argument for consolidating them into one land warfare force. There clearly is an overlap of missions. The Army did the largest amphibious invasion in history so that clearly is not just a job Marines can do. The Army Airborne forces can deploy anywhere as fast if not faster than Marines. Much of the equipment is the same. In terms of organization, it would reduce a lot of staff in the Pentagon and I would bet save money down the road. Again, this will never happen so this is purely a theoretical discussion.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
Sgt John Taylor
0
0
0
Hell NO!!! I earned my Eagle, Globe and Anchor and there is no way in hell I would dishonor the title of Marine by mixing it with the lowering standard of what is a soldier. I have family that are soldiers and I love and respect them as I do all soldiers but there is an extremely large difference in the process of becoming a Marine and that is a title that I have bled for and even though I am retired I would be crushed as would all Marines if they had to basically, for lack of a better word, surrender their EGA and be enter mingled with what we consider a lower standard of training. The Army has earned every right to be called a soldier and every Marine has earned the title of United States Marine, to be called something that we are not, to me, is considered blasphemy. We are a department of the Navy and even they wouldn't take that from us. I am not attempting to disrespect any Army, Air Force, Coast Guard or Navy personnel, this is just my personal perspective and is in no way reflected upon the Marine Corps. Everyone fights with all their heart to earn the title of their respective branch of service and that should never be taken away from anyone, I pray for every Marine that this doesn't happen. May God Bless all the Marine out there, Semper Fi!!!
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close