Should Army and Marines (or components of) consolidate?

In all honesty it makes fiscal sense, but as a Marine, I would hate to see it. I feel the Marines are more of an elite/shock troop type of force, the army larger, stronger and more cumbersome.

No they should not. Each service is unique and has its mission and has evolved into the changing missions that need to be carried out. Let things be.

No, There are two very different functions behind the abilities and what is expected of these branches. The Marines are designed to storm and area and secure that area for future operations. the Army's job is to take an area and develop it into a long term base of operations and conduct mission from that base.

No, if there is any consolidation to be had in the defense dept, it should be the Coast Guard to fold into the Navy. The Marine Corps works because of its traditions and history. Those who have served our Nation, I thank you. Those who have Served in the US Marine Corps, I salute you and stand proud as one. S/F, Pete

Yes. In fact consolidate all into a unfied U.S. Military Force. Can have different Divisions I.e. Land, Air, Sea, (Space if you include NASA or we get advanced enough to need one).

In order to make it simple I would like to use super heroes as an example.
The Marine Corps is like the Spider-Man. He is young, cute, fast, agile and metrosexual.
The Army is like the Hulk. He is older, burly, slower, brute and lumbersexual.

The President sends the Spiderman to move fast, jump over a fence and open the gate so the Hulk can go crush the enemy and occupy their country.

So please, keep them separate because we don't want a slow Spiderman or a cute Hulk.

Absolutely NOT. Thinking objectively is what is taking this country down the toilet.

Each branch and unit has it's purpose. The only reason why someone is trying to "Merge the Army and Marines" is to get the Marines to soften up and not go toe to toe with some ignorant politician who is trying to downsize the United States Military Forces. I wonder if anyone has looked into the HISTORY of the Marines, and what they really are, why they are in fact called "Marines".

Do you not realize that they fall UNDER the United States Navy for a reason?

If it's not broke, don't fix it! Tradition and branch jabbing aside, each branch has a mission that sometimes brings them side by side on the battlefield. But, without gong into a lot of detail, the Corp is unique in the fact that they do deploy with the Navy and, in most cases, are able to put boots on the ground quicker then the Army. In my experience this does not make one better then the other, just trained and prepared for different missions. We are all brothers and sisters in arms, remember that as you deliver your playful jabs.

BLUF: No. The Petty Officer who authored this question obviously decided to poke the proverbial bear so it must be that time of the year since it comes up every year in one or more of these forums. The U.S. Army is a force to be reckoned with for sure. There is no larger force with such an intense arsenal in the world. I do believe old dogs can be taught new tricks but when it gets down to brass tacks and you’re finally going out for the prize hog… you break out old proven faithful every single time.

I recall the first time I personally experienced this particular rumint in the early 1990’s that indicated a “merging of forces”. Although I look back and can see that was mainly because of nametapes being added to our uniforms when the reality of that rumint was that the communist news network (CNN) could not remember Marine’s surnames and were obviously incapable of knowing rank structure so to appease the media, Marines were obliged to wear the nametape in October 1993. I bring this up because the Army has attempted over the years to do small-scale amphibious warfare-type and expeditionary maneuvers that they are not bred to do. The words “small-scale” alone eliminates the Army’s attrition based mindset. Let’s take Army Special Force units 81st and 101st for example, since they are well known. To do any mission they have a pre-briefing that insinuates (sometimes even stating as a fact) that they expect a 10% casualty rate before any boots hit ground. Marines accept and anticipate a zero % casualty rate before, during and after any offensive. Those same Army units will also throw 300 to 3,000 soldiers out of planes at one time to go into a conflict when a squad or at most a platoon would suffice. Secondly, the mentality of small-unit leadership is oblivious to the Army and though it could be simulated, once the crap hits the fan, they will go to what they know and what they know flies in the face of reality; "Where there are two, one is in charge". That however is understood, accepted and ubiquitous throughout the ethos of the Corps.

The reality is this; Marines breed leaders, although not all Marines are leaders and that’s why those non-leaders are most often systematically weeded out or move on to other branches. The Army has the specialist direction because they don't require everyone to lead. I do not want the Marine Corps to absorb the Army which is what would happen vice the insinuated reverse, and I don’t believe the Army seriously wants to conform to our ways otherwise there wouldn't be so many of them that say, “oh, I could’ve been a Marine, but…”

Both Army and Marines are essential and separate. Their missions are different and the utility is different, diverse and both equally necessary.

Semper Fi!

I'm for anything that reduces a bureaucracy that smothers innovation and makes us a faster, more mobile and agile force that can strike hard at a moment's notice. Oh, and we can call the new organization United States Ground Forces.