Should Army and Marines (or components of) consolidate?

Thanks but no thanks. ArmyStrong!

Why put "camaraderie and traditions aside for a min."? The definition of ESPRIT DE CORPS is, "the common spirit existing in the members of a group and inspiring enthusiasm, devotion, and strong regard for the honor of the group." Why ask this question?, would be a better question. I served in the Army, but have the highest respect and admiration for ALL branches. Instead of considering this notion, why not conduct more joint training exercises working off of each other's strengths? And while I'm on my soapbox, why even consider the Hagel plan of troop reduction in the face of the tremendous global threats to National security? Come on people get your priorities straight. Out

Seeing a lot of nonsensical pride talk; the answer is no and the reason is that they train to and perform different objectives. Along those lines, Marines shouldn't have been used so heavily in the past decade, since occupation is the Army's job.

I honestly don't care we are all American troops and as long as we are firing our weapons let it be the same direction.

I think combining any of the branches would increase bureaucracy just as with increasing the size of any organization, so I'm going to say no they should not be combined.

Yes and no:
All the armed forces should be merged above division level or maybe corps level. We can combined our logistics and research and development, we can merge acquisitions, we can merge all the units that operate above division level. This reduces redundancies, we can also merge base operations, finance, and garrison support functions. These merges would creat a system where everyone uses the same gear, everyone has the best combat uniform, everyone has the same barracks, and such.
Now when we combined these functions the individuals would still bong to their "branch" but would work at a completely joint environment. Everyone below that would stay as separate branches. We reduce top heavy staffs, eliminate 4 different "units" doing the same job (I.e. Developing the uniforms or equipment).
This is already done in some countries, the IDF for example is the whole Israel armed forces but they have separate branches operating under it. The combined their higher level units like I describe IOT reduce defense spending and simplify supply functions. We can do the same, when we deploy we already have branches serving under combatant commanders of other branches.

All branches are combat oriented. Nuclear submarines are no joke! Some just put more people direct combat than others.

After reading many of the comments here from other Vets who has served more than one hitch it is obvious that those with less time in boots do not understand that there are these separate entities in the military for a reason and CW4 Curtis couldn't have said it better! Each are equally as vital.

Marines and Navy are already consolidated. Marines and Army...two different breeds, would never get along. Leave it the way it is.

The concern that I have is consolidation for the sake of perceived efficiency (read here cost savings). I offer this example; Emergency Medical Services (EMS) was a third service municipal operation in both New York City and San Francisco. Both were run by the Department of Health in each city. During the early 90's both cities decided to merge their EMS service into the Fire Department ad a cost saving measure. There are too many variables in the merger to address in this post, but the outcome in both cities had been a decrease in the quality of service to the taxpayers. The cost savings aren't all that significant at best, the response times are poor and the EMS side of the house is fighting with the fire side for a slice of the budget. When looking at "efficiency" in an operation the final product has to be evaluated as the highest priority. In looking at combining an of the branches of the Military one must consider operational success not just cost savings. There's a old adage about, "the he cost of doing business."