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
4
4
0
OK...... they can combine but I want their uniforms. Practical useful cammies and the best looking Dress Uniform on the planet. I feel like a doorman in mine. And when you blouse your boots in it it's "Welcome to Dorksville"........don't get me started on the Mess Uniforms.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
No. Because the Marine Corps will never accept a Bergdhal, Hasan, etc. Marines will certainly not promote sh!t-birds in absentia to make nice with said shi!t-birds parents.
(4)
(0)
SPC(P) Jay Heenan
Cpl D. Blake Wilson, This question was not asked (I assume) to provoke inter-service 'name calling'. Since you did mention the 'loosening' of requirements between the Army and Marines, I will show you some data from 2007.
The number of waivers issued to active-duty army recruits with felony convictions jumped to 511 in 2007, from 249 in 2006. Marine recruits with felony convictions rose to 350 from 208.
See you are slightly behind us regarding recruits with felony convictions, but you also have to look at the total numbers in each particular service. I would guess that the percentages are close. Anyway, my point is that we are all serving our country...
The number of waivers issued to active-duty army recruits with felony convictions jumped to 511 in 2007, from 249 in 2006. Marine recruits with felony convictions rose to 350 from 208.
See you are slightly behind us regarding recruits with felony convictions, but you also have to look at the total numbers in each particular service. I would guess that the percentages are close. Anyway, my point is that we are all serving our country...
(1)
(0)
PV2 Violet Case
thats what I was trying to say too. But I did not have those statistics to go on like you did. Lets remain our military family no matter what the cause may be. Brothers and sisters in all manner.
(0)
(0)
SGT Mike Marino
Cpl. Wilson What about Tim McVeigh, ex marine, blew up a government building a few years ago one of the worst acts of terrorism in this country by an American????? ex marine . It Doesn't make what you stated valid. An Ex Marine shot and killed Former President Kennedy, Lee Harvey Oswald, and had links to The soviet Union he was a communist??? A Marine Shot and Killed a veteran navy seal sniper and an Army Veteran,one of his own trying to help him. He was suspected of smoking pot. Guess who that was ?? Chris Kiel dick!!lolol u have to use your head before you write. It doesn't matter what branch, there are some that get f'd up.
(0)
(0)
Cpl D. Blake Wilson
@Sgt Mike Marino - how can it be over 20 years since Oklahoma city and you think that McVeigh was a former Marine? I question your competence as a Sgt due to your complete swing-and-a-miss, along with your inability to spell. Try to have a Corporal write out your next response after you do a bit more research on McVeigh.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+branch+of+service+was+tim+mcveigh+in
Secondly, there's a difference between those former-military who commit heinous acts vs. those who serve as complete shit-bags.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+branch+of+service+was+tim+mcveigh+in
Secondly, there's a difference between those former-military who commit heinous acts vs. those who serve as complete shit-bags.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
PO1, I think this is just a dumb thread without merit, to put down any Marine, or Soldier, or Airman, Naval personnel, Coast Guard Personnel is just plain reckless.
(4)
(0)
Sgt (Join to see)
One can argue that the strategic concept of any service can be defined by the role and purpose which it plays in implementing national policy. The Marine Corps has been founded on the idea that it provides a flexible expeditionary force which comes from the sea on short notice, sustains itself from the sea, and returns to the sea when an operation is done.
Although the United States Army is capable of launching from the sea, the army’s strategic concept is that it fights and wins the land wars. The Marines, on the other hand, flexibly adapt in the face of necessity. The Marines use the commons of the sea as both a maneuver space and as a base from which to apply force. The natural concept which arises from this strategy is the sea base.
Many argue that the army is increasingly moving in the direction of an expeditionary force. Marines, on the other hand, can act as soldiers in the army, but they are not designed to fight the operational battle. The question which we must ask ourselves is to what extent we want to see both the army and the Marines adopt or maintain expeditionary capabilities. If both services possess this capability, there may be redundancy in the services. However, we must not confuse effectiveness with efficiency and conclude that redundancy in war is dangerous. Efficiency demands that one achieve the greatest output with the smallest input. In reality, war is not a labor of efficiency but rather demands an effective operational strategy. Thus, should the army and the Marines assume expeditionary responsibilities, we can be assured that both will be providing a force which provides utility to the nation.
Although the United States Army is capable of launching from the sea, the army’s strategic concept is that it fights and wins the land wars. The Marines, on the other hand, flexibly adapt in the face of necessity. The Marines use the commons of the sea as both a maneuver space and as a base from which to apply force. The natural concept which arises from this strategy is the sea base.
Many argue that the army is increasingly moving in the direction of an expeditionary force. Marines, on the other hand, can act as soldiers in the army, but they are not designed to fight the operational battle. The question which we must ask ourselves is to what extent we want to see both the army and the Marines adopt or maintain expeditionary capabilities. If both services possess this capability, there may be redundancy in the services. However, we must not confuse effectiveness with efficiency and conclude that redundancy in war is dangerous. Efficiency demands that one achieve the greatest output with the smallest input. In reality, war is not a labor of efficiency but rather demands an effective operational strategy. Thus, should the army and the Marines assume expeditionary responsibilities, we can be assured that both will be providing a force which provides utility to the nation.
(4)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
CPL Kunza, as much as this topic can generate a lot of emotions it is actually not a new discussion. There have been numerous times when the necessity of the Marine Corps has been called into question at the highest levels. So far, there have been reasons to keep the Corps, but that may not always be the case in the future.
(0)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
SGT Wiles, that is a very well thought out response. My only crticism is that it does not take into account fiscal contraints that we are going into. From a purely fiscal point of view, redundancy in capabilities is a fiscal liability. We may not have the luxury of maintaining that duplication in the future.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
I had no problem interacting with Marines. However, in my opinion, the consolidation of the Army with the Marines wouldn't be in the best interest of either branch, due to their wide and varied techniques and tactics. How would it even work at the Pentagon? Has anyone even addressed that question?
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
Anything the Marines can do the Army has done. In World War 2 the Army fought in every theater there was! That being said the Marines believe in the mystique of being a Marine and would be a giant mistake!
(3)
(0)
Cpl James R. " Jim" Gossett Jr
I don't have anything against the Army, but have had several Soldiers tell
me they seriously doubt they could have survived Our Boot Camp...
me they seriously doubt they could have survived Our Boot Camp...
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
No!!!! I served in both Marine infantry (0331) from 2000-2004 and Army infantry (11B) in the 101st from 2006-2011. There is a definite cultural and lifestyle difference between two, and the Marines have earned and command their place as a separate entity in our armed forces.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
Different cultures and unique traditions. This is not anMBA analysis business decision or an accounting question, it is a defense of our country question.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
No offense to the Petty Officer who wrote this, but when I saw this question posted, I thought to myself - "There is no way that a Marine posted that..." How did I know? Again, no offense to any of the other services, but for reasons that only Marines would understand. And THAT, my friends, is why the Army and Marine Corps will never consolidate.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
The problem I foresee with consolidation of any of the branches of service lies in the background of the top brass, and how it shapes their priorities. I will elaborate using the Air Force returning to the Army as an example.
Currently, our Air Force has a diverse mission. Yes, we were once under the Army. However, our current leaders have evolved in a world where their concerns fall primarily in the realm of air superiority. While the Army does have air assets, the leadership has grown accustomed to putting the interests of the ground war first and foremost in their agendas (as they well should).
Should we combine services, in this case Air Force and Army, we lose some of the valuable input that comes from years of experience managing and engaging the enemy from a specialized angle. As of today, our Air Force receives and allocates their portion of the budget to maintain air superiority, allowing the Army to invest their portion on building the most capable ground forces for today's conflicts. Would an Army General, focused on his infantry background and seeing lesser value in advanced air weapon systems, fairly divide a budget to now include cyber programs and upgrades to airframes that are already struggling to stay in the air? Would he speak to Congress with as much knowledge about issues like saving the A-10? The current division of military missions ensures that each capability receives an advocate in a world where budgets are getting smaller and smaller each day, and each advocate is able to become slightly more knowledgeable and passionate about the service which they represent.
Where can we make cuts and combine services? We are already seeing positions in personnel and medical facilities fade away. In these jobs that essentially perform the same function across the services, perhaps we can structure a command that provides streamlined training and one office to handle the needs across the board. For example, does a Joint base need two finance offices, two medical centers, separate dining facilities, and separate JAG offices. Probably not. Perhaps, instead of combining the missions altogether, certain general regulations can be adapted to create a separate combined military support function and reduce the amount of "recreating the wheel" we see in those support areas.
Currently, our Air Force has a diverse mission. Yes, we were once under the Army. However, our current leaders have evolved in a world where their concerns fall primarily in the realm of air superiority. While the Army does have air assets, the leadership has grown accustomed to putting the interests of the ground war first and foremost in their agendas (as they well should).
Should we combine services, in this case Air Force and Army, we lose some of the valuable input that comes from years of experience managing and engaging the enemy from a specialized angle. As of today, our Air Force receives and allocates their portion of the budget to maintain air superiority, allowing the Army to invest their portion on building the most capable ground forces for today's conflicts. Would an Army General, focused on his infantry background and seeing lesser value in advanced air weapon systems, fairly divide a budget to now include cyber programs and upgrades to airframes that are already struggling to stay in the air? Would he speak to Congress with as much knowledge about issues like saving the A-10? The current division of military missions ensures that each capability receives an advocate in a world where budgets are getting smaller and smaller each day, and each advocate is able to become slightly more knowledgeable and passionate about the service which they represent.
Where can we make cuts and combine services? We are already seeing positions in personnel and medical facilities fade away. In these jobs that essentially perform the same function across the services, perhaps we can structure a command that provides streamlined training and one office to handle the needs across the board. For example, does a Joint base need two finance offices, two medical centers, separate dining facilities, and separate JAG offices. Probably not. Perhaps, instead of combining the missions altogether, certain general regulations can be adapted to create a separate combined military support function and reduce the amount of "recreating the wheel" we see in those support areas.
(3)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
I thank you for feedback. Not to sound like ignoramus, but I've observed quite a few similarities in both army and marine corps, in handling warfare and ultimate objectives. They may have different missions, but both are channeled towards infantry, cavalry, artillery, and other direct combat support. Thus the reason for my creation for this forum.
(1)
(0)
TSgt (Join to see)
I know exactly where your question is coming from, as I have also had this hypothetical discussion with several friends and family who serve in the various branches. What I have gathered from our conversations is that when it comes to doctrine, training, response time, capabilities, and priorities, there are many differences that we often don't see on the surface.
Now, one thing I will back 100% is picking one well researched and developed uniform, issuing it across the services, and sticking with it for more than a few years. I think that would be a great place to start!
Now, one thing I will back 100% is picking one well researched and developed uniform, issuing it across the services, and sticking with it for more than a few years. I think that would be a great place to start!
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google