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
2
2
0
Keep them separate. In my opinion, Marines need to get back to their mission on the water and the coast line and the Army focus on everything inland. Why we have Marines and Army doing the same mission, Marines so far from water, is beyond me. Each service has it's mission; Air Force... duh. Navy... pretty clear there. Marines.... Marine.... water.... aqua....I will think something to do with water. Army.... well as all armies have been land based, we can safely assume Army means the big force on the big ground. Consolidating would diminish purpose. Marines are where they should be, the infantry of the Navy. Coast killers. Beach holders. My family before me were proud Marines. I was a proud Army Tanker. I was a soldier. There is no less pride in calling myself soldier than when a Marine calls themselves a Marine (however it seems some Marines believe Army aren't as proud).
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I would say it could be done, and done well.
But to "take traditions out" is nearly impossible. We are nothing without our history.
I think a more reasonable question would be, "Should the Army and Marine Corps cross train and have more joint missions to improve inter-branch cohesion and versatility?"
We are already consolidated under the DoD. Why have more consolidation?
But to "take traditions out" is nearly impossible. We are nothing without our history.
I think a more reasonable question would be, "Should the Army and Marine Corps cross train and have more joint missions to improve inter-branch cohesion and versatility?"
We are already consolidated under the DoD. Why have more consolidation?
(2)
(0)
Suspended Profile
I would say yes, but only if Army integrates the same standards of discipline, physical and mental training, plus spirit de corps from marines.
2
2
0
No The title of Marine is special and should not be taken lightly. Marines are a special force that needs to remain independent.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I am a Marine. But I can put that aside for the sake of this question.
1. Both Army and Marines share the same basic infrastructure concepts so from at the highest level I can see that this would be something to consider.
2. Trying to keep history and traditions out of any part of any branch of the military is an impossible goal and doomed to fail.
3. If this were to happen, the driving concept and how the Marines are used would have to be a special ops unit within the Army. So what is gained, nothing. You still have a separate command structure, separate gear requirements, and very different mentalities within the top parent group.
As things stand now we have a logical division among the branches, not based on similar gear but based on combat goals. This is the better way to separate so that the goals of one group can be striven for without clouding it with unneeded interim goals.
1. Both Army and Marines share the same basic infrastructure concepts so from at the highest level I can see that this would be something to consider.
2. Trying to keep history and traditions out of any part of any branch of the military is an impossible goal and doomed to fail.
3. If this were to happen, the driving concept and how the Marines are used would have to be a special ops unit within the Army. So what is gained, nothing. You still have a separate command structure, separate gear requirements, and very different mentalities within the top parent group.
As things stand now we have a logical division among the branches, not based on similar gear but based on combat goals. This is the better way to separate so that the goals of one group can be striven for without clouding it with unneeded interim goals.
(2)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
I fail to see how Marines would be special ops. There are redundancies between the two services certainly. The 82nd would claim it could force on force with whichever corps infantry group wanted to do a force on force competition. Marsoc could be rolled into the existing SF framework as many sof forces go to the jfk for training anyways. On the plus side, the corps would get newer equipment and have less broken things they had to steal off discarded army items. That's worth an oorah I figure.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
That's insane. Two completely different forces, and objectives. That would never happen and could never happen. And, there is no way that it is possible after all of the "Esprit de Corps" and Marine Corps tradition that we have been taught that you could ever ask us to put camaraderie and tradition aside. Not going to happen. No offense, Army, although I guess you guys may feel the same way...
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
It would make more sense to have the Marines take over the Army. Then we would Finally win against Navy.
(2)
(0)
SSG John Bacon
Sgt Richard Buckner Just a reference to the fact that Army hasn't beaten Navy in Football in 10 years. But you are correct The army has more "Water Craft" than all the services.
(0)
(0)
SFC Mark Merino
I'm having a great time reading these comments. This is how professionals give each other the business and still be respectful. I wish other members could maintain their professionalism like this. Again, this is another thing the Marines got right. They don't make the news by spending millions on advertising and continue to portray an indestructible image by not allowing their service to be beaten by anyone. Can you imagine if a Mairines sports team lost to........anyone? They hold onto their pennies and spend wisely. If the Marines were put in charge of the budget, our books would be in the black in no time. Of course this policy of giving out money for free generation after generation would cease immediately, and they would insist on making people EARN their welfare. Go Army.......beat Navy (pretty please)
(3)
(0)
Maj Mike Sciales
I agree wholeheartedly, except for one small correction. I was in Panama from 1991-1994 and we always had the Turkey Bowl - an inter-service football game. Sadly, the USMC was out early each year after being defeated by Navy. A pity really -'there were only about 20 Marines assigned who could play football, the rest were just killers waiting for a chance to beat somebody's ass. I will also note that while the U.S. Army flew in ringers onTDY, the USAF, with an astonishing collection of wrench turners and Remington Raiders managed to defeat mother Army each year for my tour and enjoyed the glower of the USSOUTHCOM Commander having to give the trophy to the winning team. Army analysts studied these routine victories and concluded it was our ability to read and write that made all the difference. It also led to our motto Semper Gumby "Always flexible." Let the beatings begin.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
I have thought this for years. There really is no "need" for the Marine Corps to exist anymore—times change and warfare evolves. The real question is how expensive would a merger be? Or perhaps, will it save money?
(2)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
Money talks, my friend. Sequestration is coming soon again. Glad you see where I might be coming from on this matter if traditions, stigmas, and camaraderie are put aside
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
No. The missions are separate and distinct. The marines move in quicker and versus the massive mobilization of the army. The marines are 100% expeditionary, the army isn't. Sorry, no. Beyond that the marines fill an important role in the naval services.
(2)
(0)
SGT Mike Marino
Don't agree SSG , Sitting behind the desk to much, you have to get out in the field. We have rapid deployment forces. Rangers , 82nd, Delta force. Didn't make sense what you mentioned??? Of course the Marines fill this duty as well.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google