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
3
3
0
No Disrespect to Soldiers (comrades in arms), but why -- what's the point? Have you researched the mission of the USMC and the U.S. Army? Why is this important to you?, when compared to veteran issues, transition, and not to mention the pride of belonging to your branch of service...
(3)
(0)
SFC Jim Ruether
I agree with the idea of letting the branches be like they are right now and keep them separated. The only thing I think that I would change is to develop a centralized supply system so there is no duplication of effort by having multiple supply chains. I also think that one uniform with each branch displaying their own insignia would cut down on spending to maintain different types on uniform. Just my humble opinion
(1)
(0)
GySgt Ken Norwood
In a nut shell the Marine Corps mission is to kick open the door and clear the house, The Army's job is to maintain the house for long term use. BOTH are indeed vital missions. That does not mean that the 2 services don't, on occasion cross over the lines and do the other service's job. With respect to the one uniform concept I must say I disagree. One of the hall marks of each service has been, and should continue to be, teh ability to pick out a fellow service member from a distance.
(2)
(0)
MSgt Mike Brown; MBTI-CP; MA, Ph.D.
"With respect to the one uniform concept I must say I disagree" Gunny -- what are we disagreeing about???
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Oh come on. Esprit de corps is best in the Marines? Nah. Try submariners. Hey, we shoot marines out of our subs. lol
Okay okay. They could be combined but still be seperate. Much like Navy/Marines are now. Just Army/Marines. But the Marines were meant to be a fighting force based on the sea and the Army a fighting force based on land.
To look at this whole thing, why not combine the Air Force with the Navy fighters etc?
The more realistic scenario would be to combine all the forces under one umbrella. Then we could have air, sea, and land forces with smaller divisions under that. Like fast reaction, sustained occupation etc.
Army and Marine corps differences are like the Navy's surface fleet and submarine force. The same but different in key ways. So consolidation is possible, but not recommended in the case of Army/Marines.
Okay okay. They could be combined but still be seperate. Much like Navy/Marines are now. Just Army/Marines. But the Marines were meant to be a fighting force based on the sea and the Army a fighting force based on land.
To look at this whole thing, why not combine the Air Force with the Navy fighters etc?
The more realistic scenario would be to combine all the forces under one umbrella. Then we could have air, sea, and land forces with smaller divisions under that. Like fast reaction, sustained occupation etc.
Army and Marine corps differences are like the Navy's surface fleet and submarine force. The same but different in key ways. So consolidation is possible, but not recommended in the case of Army/Marines.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
It drives me at how arrogant some of you Marines are to think that you are more proud than a Soldier or better trained than a Soldier, or even better, more disciplined than a Soldier. I believe that I earned my titles through blood, sweat, and tears just as some of you believe. I do believe that we watch our brothers and sisters in arms die on the battlefield just as Marines. It's OK to be proud of your corp, but not ok to belittle those with whom I serve to express your pride. I have respect for all branches of services because we all make the same sacrifices. I served as an Army Drill Sergeant for almost 3 years and trained a plethora of former Marines. My greatest challenge was getting them to qualify on an M16A2 rifle. Targets are a bit harder to hit when they are moving. I for one am proud to be an American Soldier and I will not allow any other branch to believe that they are more proud than I, nor will I ever say that I am more proud than you. Answer the question that was asked and keep your arrogant branch bashing comments to yourselves.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
No, they were both designed to do different things. The Marines are also a part of the Department of the Navy for a reason. Lastly, we all know that the Army is funded more than the Marines. The Army is the bigger part of our military force besides the Navy. That being said.. politics would probably argue that the Army should train the same and that is just wrong. No insult intended. Plus, one of our great qualities is the heritage of our branches. Every branch thinks they are better than the other and it makes a playful competition; which raises morale in every branch. Things operate very well as it is. Don't fix something if it ain't broke.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
I could see some parts of the two branches coming together but at the same time staying identified as army or marine fields like infantry and artillery
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
Having served in both, I can answer objectively. First, they have different missions. The Army is there for large campaigns and needs Congress to declare war to kick some butt. The Marines are the 911 force. They were designed to move in short bursts and can be deployed in very short term at the direction of the President. See how that happened? You need each. Both are fighting in the current wars, but the fundamental difference is still valid for other engagements. Really, this post seems like more of a troll than a question.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
Honestly I think this idea needs to be expanded to all services. I think a single unified service is the best way to increase efficiency and reduce redundancy. Back in the days of sailing ships it made sense to have the services separate because sea and land warfare rarely touched each other. In the current joint warfighting environment, it makes sense to have a single unified command. But really the only way this will work is if the new service found a way to integrate the best traditions of the current services. But honestly this idea will not be adopted due to the massive resistance of the traditionalists.
(3)
(0)
SFC Robert Wheeler
On a practical note, how does one accommodate different physical training standards, evaluation and promotion systems that each in their own way require a level of bureaucracy to conduct? That's the part that puzzles me.
(0)
(0)
SGT David T.
I am not saying there will not be a lot of things to work out but that is where DOD establishes standards based on the operational needs. We have these concurrent systems that basiclly do the same thing even if there are some differences. I really do not think a collaborative effort of all of the services will work. It would have to be a top down directive.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Once we overcome everyone's psychological and psychosocial ties (as reflected in the previous comments), we will realize that the merging of the Army and Marine Corps is not only feasible but logical. Think about it:
1. We could respond quickly... AND maintain stability ops.
2. We could cover multiple facets of the battlefield.
3. Air, Ground, and Amphibious warfare capabilities.
4. A well rounded Officer and Enlisted group.
It could easily work, be easily managed, and quickly modified for potential missions.
Pride, tradition, and negativity aside... We can build upon all of our greatest strengths and maximize our overall potential through flexibility, leadership, and education.
1. We could respond quickly... AND maintain stability ops.
2. We could cover multiple facets of the battlefield.
3. Air, Ground, and Amphibious warfare capabilities.
4. A well rounded Officer and Enlisted group.
It could easily work, be easily managed, and quickly modified for potential missions.
Pride, tradition, and negativity aside... We can build upon all of our greatest strengths and maximize our overall potential through flexibility, leadership, and education.
(3)
(0)
PO2 (Join to see)
SFC, with that perspective in mind, I agree. I agree not only because in the future, there will be only 1, but because as technology and expeditions expand (space is coming! lol) the need for uniformity will arise to handle the ever broadening spectrum of activity and operations the military is expected to manage.
However, as long as tradition lives, so will the majority desire to keep the branches separate. It would be a different world where all the branches are 1. The Army still gives the Air Force a hard time for splitting off in 1947. People naturally desire to be unique and different, even to a flaw.
However, as long as tradition lives, so will the majority desire to keep the branches separate. It would be a different world where all the branches are 1. The Army still gives the Air Force a hard time for splitting off in 1947. People naturally desire to be unique and different, even to a flaw.
(1)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
Sgt Richard Buckner, sorry, but I don't think SFC Ellis was 'joking'. No need to patronize like that with all due respect
(0)
(0)
CDR Michael Goldschmidt
I think it's important not to discount the psychological and psychosocial, even philosophical, diversity. Mariners and airmen simply don't think alike, nor to submariners, infantry soldiers, SF. Army philosophy and origin is much different than Navy or Marine philosophy. Without different services, there would be no joint chiefs. Without co-equals among the Joint Chiefs, there would only be on perspective presented to civilian leadership, because the chain of command would be altered, with one "top dog", not a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs like we have now. Tension among the services is probably a good thing. It brings on competition and innovation, and is probably also good for protecting the populace from abuse by the military. Then, there are the Constitutional issues.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
I see a lot of non-objective, emotional responses to this proposition. I have been guilty of a few, as well. However, to answer the OP, a non-emotional, objective response. I'll try.
No, they should not. I think it would be feasible. I don't think it would be reasonable. Due to the emotional responses, I think it would cause conflict. Emotions aside, it would definitely be a Charlie Foxtrot, at least for several years.
Several posters on here, myself included, have mentioned that in all actuality, the Army can, and does, regularly, accomplish the roles currently assigned to the Marine Corps. In fact, the only role that the Army does not regularly conduct that has ever been assigned the Marines is the protection of U.S. Naval assets.
However, in order to effectively and regularly absorb the U.S.M.C.'s doctrinal mission, the Army would eventually need (or want) to create a separate Corps of Marines, or whatever the term they assigned them. It would be a branch, same as infantry, cav, sf, etc.
Most people that are in support of this tout fiscal savings and streamlined logistics as a reason for the consolidation. Yes, some streamlining would occur. Same uniforms, same equipment, and so on. However, do/did you actually serve? In this military? What form of logistics is ever streamlined? And what sensible fiscal policy is ever actually employed? I mean, come on! Are we in the same military?!
The only "streamlining" that would actually occur is the deployment logistics, and last I checked, the Corps outsourced that to the Army for OIF/OEF anyway.
So, what you'd have is another branch of the Army. Another one, because you can't have enough (soon, each MOS will be it's own branch at this rate). Why stop there? Why not incorporate the Navy, the Air Force, and even the Coast Guard's wartime mission under that same umbrella?
Wait...
We do. It's called the DoD. We're all on a common budget, albeit divided amongst the branches. We're all on a common payscale. We all get paid from the same entity (DFAS). We just wear different uniforms, and speak as if we're somehow different. Basically, it's like a bunch of highschoolers fighting over who's homeroom is better, when we're all in the same damn school.
So, in response to the OP, possible, but pointless. In response to everyone on here that's made a reasonable, non-emotional comment, thank you for your ability to follow instructions and act as a professional. And for everyone that's exhibited 10 degrees of butthurt, maybe go back to high school, argue about homeroom for a couple years, then grow up, and reup. Rant over. Out.
No, they should not. I think it would be feasible. I don't think it would be reasonable. Due to the emotional responses, I think it would cause conflict. Emotions aside, it would definitely be a Charlie Foxtrot, at least for several years.
Several posters on here, myself included, have mentioned that in all actuality, the Army can, and does, regularly, accomplish the roles currently assigned to the Marine Corps. In fact, the only role that the Army does not regularly conduct that has ever been assigned the Marines is the protection of U.S. Naval assets.
However, in order to effectively and regularly absorb the U.S.M.C.'s doctrinal mission, the Army would eventually need (or want) to create a separate Corps of Marines, or whatever the term they assigned them. It would be a branch, same as infantry, cav, sf, etc.
Most people that are in support of this tout fiscal savings and streamlined logistics as a reason for the consolidation. Yes, some streamlining would occur. Same uniforms, same equipment, and so on. However, do/did you actually serve? In this military? What form of logistics is ever streamlined? And what sensible fiscal policy is ever actually employed? I mean, come on! Are we in the same military?!
The only "streamlining" that would actually occur is the deployment logistics, and last I checked, the Corps outsourced that to the Army for OIF/OEF anyway.
So, what you'd have is another branch of the Army. Another one, because you can't have enough (soon, each MOS will be it's own branch at this rate). Why stop there? Why not incorporate the Navy, the Air Force, and even the Coast Guard's wartime mission under that same umbrella?
Wait...
We do. It's called the DoD. We're all on a common budget, albeit divided amongst the branches. We're all on a common payscale. We all get paid from the same entity (DFAS). We just wear different uniforms, and speak as if we're somehow different. Basically, it's like a bunch of highschoolers fighting over who's homeroom is better, when we're all in the same damn school.
So, in response to the OP, possible, but pointless. In response to everyone on here that's made a reasonable, non-emotional comment, thank you for your ability to follow instructions and act as a professional. And for everyone that's exhibited 10 degrees of butthurt, maybe go back to high school, argue about homeroom for a couple years, then grow up, and reup. Rant over. Out.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google