Posted on May 28, 2014
Should Army and Marines (or components of) consolidate?
1.35M
6.45K
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 10 y ago
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 1534
No. Absolutely not. The Army and the Marine Corps should not consolidate. I cannot put traditions and history aside. Our history is what makes the Marine Corps and the Army what they are. The Army is a fine fighting force. I served along side them in the first gulf war and we had a Stryker brigade attached to my regiment during my year in Iraq. The Army acquitted itself in spectacular fashion. However, I just cannot conceive that or support it. There are just too many differences between us for all those individuals to accept. While a consolidation would be more economically practical and probably save tons of money there are things more important than money. The pride that comes with saying your a "Marine" or a "Soldier" is not something I would be willing to give up. A consolidation would just be throwing away centuries of history and traditions for the sake of saving money. You also need to consider other things like what would we call that force? what would the uniforms look like? What about ribbons and badges? schools? recruit training? etc. Doctrine would also have to change from the ground up. The Marine Corps is a small amphibious attack force while the Army is more of a larger land occupation force.
I can recall when I was a Drill Instructor on Parris Island that bus loads of Army Drill Sergeants would periodically visit and observe us training recruits because the Marine Corps keeps male and female recruits separate. There is no co-ed recruit training in the Corps.
Keep the Army and the Marine Corps as they are.
My two cents....
I can recall when I was a Drill Instructor on Parris Island that bus loads of Army Drill Sergeants would periodically visit and observe us training recruits because the Marine Corps keeps male and female recruits separate. There is no co-ed recruit training in the Corps.
Keep the Army and the Marine Corps as they are.
My two cents....
(3)
(0)
The answer to that would be no. Different ethos, different mission, different heuristics.
Have a great day!
Have a great day!
(3)
(0)
CPL Noble: This is the dumbest most ignorant question I have heard in a long time. Marines are a breed apart, Semper Fi!
(3)
(0)
I don't think the Army and Marines should integrate because their mission is differrent. the Marine Corps is designed to be a quick mobile unit that can react to anything within 48 to 72 hrs where as the army is designed as an occupation force, that why the Army is larger than the marine corp. the force stucture is also different, there is a reason why the Marines are called the 911 force of the U.S. and the Army is not.
(3)
(0)
COL Rich McKinney
You have restated a quote from Gen Kelly, Commandant of Marines, years ago: "The Corp's job is to win battles, the Army's job is to win wars."
(1)
(0)
SSG Nick Tramontano
While you've been deployed to some interesting places you don't know much about the regular army. I spent my active duty time at Ft.Bragg. Not counting other non-divisional units, the 82nd Airborne rotated brigades on alert status. The units would be ready to go within a certain time frame. Rucks were packed, equipment loaded, etc..If there was a situation that needed a fast response then Airborne troops would be deployed. Grenada and Panama are two examples.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
yes that is true, but in the overall froce structure of the the army is not designed for that, they have only done that in the past several years. so again look at the overall force structure of the Marines and the Army and tell me they have the same mission. and why does every marine unit that deploys has to be special operation capable and the Army does not.
(0)
(0)
SGT Mike Marino
Army has rapid Deployment forces. 82nd, Delta force units ( dont know if they are still active) etc etc. 101st Airborne, our Ranger division. etc.
(0)
(0)
I think regardless of what happens. The Marines will be Marines. Whether being Dept of the Navy or Department of the Army. If it was Army it would just be Department of the Army, United States Marine Corps just as it currently is Department of the Navy, United States Marine Corps. The Corps is the Corps regardless of what department it falls ever under. Pretty sure there will still be the same indoctrination and traditions that occurs now. I think what some fail to realize is that Marines are a "specialty force" meant for beach landings as it was stood up back in 1775 to protect ships. Yes, we are in a different day and age, but regardless of how you look at it and whom might get butthurt over this; the Marines are Soldiers of the Sea. We still serve the same purpose as a light strike force, we get in and get out. The Army is an occupying force. But I tell you what, the Army will never have the greatness which is the MAGTF. Hell, we are a air, land and sea force.
(3)
(0)
As a former Infantry Marine, and a current Soldier with over 18 years of combined service, I feel qualified to speak on this.
I have worked hard over the years to brand myself. I am Walter Mack! I don't need any accomplishment or title to make me awesome. I am awesome because I do awesome things!
If you need any title, be it Marine, Cav Scout, Infantryman, COL, SGM, GySgt, Ranger, SF, etc..., than you need to reevaluate your own value to the team. My accomplishments are my own, and I know what I've done.
Can we consolidate the services? Sure. Would it fix anything? Nope. Our military bureaucracy would only find a way to create more frustrating bull crap in order to maintain a lost sense of identity. It doesn't matter how you reframe us, it's better to leave well enough alone and look at other ways to eliminate redundancy. Once we've proven that we can make steps forward in eliminating fraud, waste & abuse, then we can look at a consolidation.
Truthfully, we could consolidate all services if we were serious about it. Why can't Navy personnel serve time on Coast Guard ships, & vice versa? They have a similar mission, and the diversity would only serve to expand their skillset. Infantry Soldiers and Marines could mentor each other's leadership skills and abilities. Most MOS's aren't that different. We could put Soldier medics on a ship, and corpsmen in an Army hospital. Many training bases already train multiple services.
The only reason we have separate services is to maintain separate identities. What I don't understand is why we are so beholden to an identity of service affiliation that we are unable to develop our own. Be you and do work. If everyone came to work every day and did their job, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
I have worked hard over the years to brand myself. I am Walter Mack! I don't need any accomplishment or title to make me awesome. I am awesome because I do awesome things!
If you need any title, be it Marine, Cav Scout, Infantryman, COL, SGM, GySgt, Ranger, SF, etc..., than you need to reevaluate your own value to the team. My accomplishments are my own, and I know what I've done.
Can we consolidate the services? Sure. Would it fix anything? Nope. Our military bureaucracy would only find a way to create more frustrating bull crap in order to maintain a lost sense of identity. It doesn't matter how you reframe us, it's better to leave well enough alone and look at other ways to eliminate redundancy. Once we've proven that we can make steps forward in eliminating fraud, waste & abuse, then we can look at a consolidation.
Truthfully, we could consolidate all services if we were serious about it. Why can't Navy personnel serve time on Coast Guard ships, & vice versa? They have a similar mission, and the diversity would only serve to expand their skillset. Infantry Soldiers and Marines could mentor each other's leadership skills and abilities. Most MOS's aren't that different. We could put Soldier medics on a ship, and corpsmen in an Army hospital. Many training bases already train multiple services.
The only reason we have separate services is to maintain separate identities. What I don't understand is why we are so beholden to an identity of service affiliation that we are unable to develop our own. Be you and do work. If everyone came to work every day and did their job, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
(3)
(0)
SSG Nick Tramontano
Great suggestion with inter-service training. It would give the troops a better understanding how the other branch works and that's something they can bring back to their units. Kind of like 'Train the Trainer' concept. One branch might have a better way to do a particular task/mission than the other. It would be good camaraderie as well.
(1)
(0)

Suspended Profile
I would say that if you were going to consolidate, then the forces would reshape to look like this:
Navy: all ships and water craft
Army: all ground troops
Air Force: all aircraft and missiles
Marines: all specops troops.
The problem is that sea going troops have unique skills that land based folks don't. Re pilots, it doesn't matter how good a Blackhawk pilot is, if s/he doesn't know how to land on a DD or CGC. It doesn't matter how good an F15/16/22/whatever pilot is if not Carrier qualified, or Harrier pilot if not Big Deck V/Stol qualified.
Further, there would be provincialism which would result in some things being improperly funded. Imagine, Army folks, if you had to go to the Navy to use a watercraft - something you have more of than Navy. The list of pitfalls is endless.
Smaller countries can have more streamlined forces, but because of specialized mobility needs, the roles of soldiers and marines will never be the same, the role of Navy vs AF vs Army vs Marine vs CG pilots will never be the same, etc.
I suspect this would be a non-starter...
Navy: all ships and water craft
Army: all ground troops
Air Force: all aircraft and missiles
Marines: all specops troops.
The problem is that sea going troops have unique skills that land based folks don't. Re pilots, it doesn't matter how good a Blackhawk pilot is, if s/he doesn't know how to land on a DD or CGC. It doesn't matter how good an F15/16/22/whatever pilot is if not Carrier qualified, or Harrier pilot if not Big Deck V/Stol qualified.
Further, there would be provincialism which would result in some things being improperly funded. Imagine, Army folks, if you had to go to the Navy to use a watercraft - something you have more of than Navy. The list of pitfalls is endless.
Smaller countries can have more streamlined forces, but because of specialized mobility needs, the roles of soldiers and marines will never be the same, the role of Navy vs AF vs Army vs Marine vs CG pilots will never be the same, etc.
I suspect this would be a non-starter...
PO1 (Join to see)
I like your response. Also please explain, why, as a widespread rumor goes, does the Navy have more fighter jets than the Air Force?? Hmm....
(0)
(0)

Suspended Profile
It's always been interesting - the Army has more watercraft than the Navy, and the Navy more aircraft than the Air Force. Ultimately it is because of the ways we project our power...
A corps and an army have different status in international law. It's far easier to deploy the former than the latter. The Marine Corps has jet aircraft, the army doesn't. The Corps is ship and amphibious oriented, the army isn't. The Marines are historically a fast moving, task oriented, ready to deploy, light infantry trained specifically to seize, hold and defend a beachhead while the army's training and doctrine is to wage sustained long-term warfare.
And most importantly, we are The Marines.
j
And most importantly, we are The Marines.
j
(3)
(0)
LtCol (Join to see)
Uhrah! I enlisted in the Vietnam era, and retired after the first Gulf War. The difference between the Army when I was a kid and the force today is like day and night. They are an extremely professional organization with excellent leadership. I truly believe our inter-service rivalry is good for Soldier and Marine Corps esprit. The Army and the Marine Corps are outstanding fighting forces. The Marine Corps just happens to be the Best.
(0)
(0)
The Army and the Marine Corps should not be consolidated. These services have two completely different missions, roles and responsibilities. We need to keep it that way.
(3)
(0)
This is a rather interesting topic because I often thought that I would makes sense to have the 'U.S. Military'. We would just have different jobs. Think of all the money the government could save by only have one uniform and one branch. This would never work because of people are ingrained into their own perceptions of 'my service is better than yours'. Not to mention, the General Officers of each service would put this to bed way before open discussions were started. They would lose positions, powers and decision making abilities. However, I think if we were just the U.S. Military, we could become even more effective!
(3)
(0)
Read This Next