Should Army and Marines (or components of) consolidate?

The comments I have read make the same points I have heard argued back and forth for the least 40 years. There was one that I saw that caught my attention, however. It concerned consolidating certain things under DoD. Certainly family housing, exchanges, commissaries - quality of life amenities would be more consistent (and probably better) if consolidated under DoD. In the immortal words of Forrest, Forrest Gump, "that's all I have to say about that."
Now to the original question. Should the Army and Marine Corps merge? My answer is akm emphatic "No"! The Marines being up under the Navy gives our war-fighting capabilities incredible flexibility. I could, but won't bother to, expound on some of those ways. Just think in terms of flexibility.

My opinion is absolutely not. People, who advocate a merger of Army and Marine Corps, are proving themselves ignorant of the expeditionary nature of the Corps. The Marine Corps is rightfully one of the three sea services and an integral part of the Navy. The Army is designed for a different role whereas the Marines are there to get in, do the job and move on. I consider Marines to be shipmates just as much as I do my fellow Sailors.

No, absolutely not!

We only need two branches......Fleet and Mobile infantry.....and while we are at this, lets make Jonny Rico the next Sky Marshall.

Just not No, but No Fucking way in hell.
Should Navy seals and army green berets combine?

We have a different mindset, our pigs are like the army grunts, our grunts are equal if not better then the rangers.

What you should be asking is why the Marines are such a bad ass fighting force when compared to the Army.

ALL marines go though the same boot camp, then go to their Mos school. The army should have a combine boot camp where all cooks, supply clerks, grunts etc train together. Then they report to their basic school.

You duck head idea will not solve communicate issue, it will not save money. But it will cost money and be a waste of time.

Marine infantry is train to be jack of all trades, you can take a company and have it fight in a jungle, arctic, island hopping, mountain environment. While in the army you have the opposite.

Look at the combat record of the Marines compared to the army from WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the gulf and now. We have always kicked ass and taken names.

There was the joke that the marines take a hill, give it to the army to defend, only to have to retake it when the army gives it up.

Someone please make this nonsensical thread go away. The answer is clearly no.

Yep. Consolidate ALL the services, preserve traditions with subgroup training and lineage history (if Cav can do it, so can the Corps), enhance interoperability at one stroke, and fire at least two thirds of flag officers across the sub-branches of U.S. armed forces.

While we're at it, it's time to rename the whole command pyramid by its accurate and traditional moniker: the Department of War.

When we were working a Joint Experiment, the Marine task was to fight and win the nation's battles and the Army task was to fight and win the nation's campaigns. It works.

Personally, Marines go back to Navy and Air Force go back to Army. Both have infantry, both have air support, one is sea based the other land.

Stay separated both have their own jobs to do. An yes we do work well together. But that being said I as a Marine that has a lot of friends and family in the military. Will have to say that the Marines is a way of life and thinking. Compared to a lot of the other branches that I know people from a lot of them just kind of drop the pride they had when the contract is up.