Should Army and Marines (or components of) consolidate?

I will not say it will never happen. However, if it does, it won’t be in the way most think. Too many of you are looking at command redundancy and perceived operational overlap. Yep, there is merit there. But if you look from an overall combat readiness sense of the individual Marine and Soldier sense, that flies out the window. Every Marine is a rifleman and has to meet the minimum physical and mental requirement to meet the macro requirement. Put another way, i don’t think we would drop the overall standards to meet the Army, but increase the standards to meet the minimum of the Corps. Some would say the Marines would be rolled in like the SF. I doubt that. The Corps has a unique identity separate from the Army and, with all due respect, I do not believe most Americans would think this a good idea ..... that merging the two would dilute the effectiveness of the Marines. So if it were to happen, I think the purpose would be to help improve the Army overall.

The basic training would benefit from adopting the marine style but other than that they both already have their combat roles so I’d say leave them as is.

I’m Coast Guard and really don’t have a dog in this fight. That said, I’ve deployed to Afghanistan with Marines and with Army; both are outstanding but each brings its oun culture and methodology. We can adapt a portion of the Army do do the job of the Marines but then you create a subculture within the army that does amphibious assault exclusively. Why not just maintain a branch that already does that and does it really well.

No! Even if they did consolidate, there would still have to be separate training for each specialty You woud still have Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force, who prepare in their specialty. Each of us in our particular branch are proud of our accomplishments in battle and preparations. Each unit has it's area of expertise and should remain as is.

Traditions and pride aside, I say no. Because the two branches despite their similarities contrast significantly in their overall role in completing objectives. Furthermore, in the technical aspects of mission achievement, the two branches also employ different strategic tactics and are specialized for specific missions that often require specialties each branch is groomed for. With that said, I think consolidation maybe most appropriate at the bureaucratic level.

As a retired US Navy Corpsman and "Marine DOC" - NO!!!

No Consolidation! Marines would not look good in Berets. The Army would not look as good in Marine Corps Dress Blues. Marines provide 34% of the mission assignments at 17% of the DoD budget...so the American Taxpayers would get less value for their money.

No! Just because there appears to be a superficial similarity, don't think that the Army and Marines are the same; they aren't. You might as well suggest merging the Navy and Coast Guard since they both work in a maritime environment, but you'd be wrong there, too. Each service has a completely different internal structure and overall world mission that is quite different from that of the other services. True, there are specific missions or assignments where combat forces are almost merged, but even there, the unit integrity is maintained. I have worked with units of both Army and Marines, and there is no real comparison among them because of their specific mission, training, and internal structure. I have tremendous respect and trust for the Marines (except in a bar fight where I'd have to take sides), but I wouldn't put them above the Army. This is a situation where "separate, but equal" truly fits.

Good God No! I have 11 years in the Army and 13 years in the Marine Corps so I have had a foot in both worlds.. The 2 services are more different than similar. The Army focuses on fighting with large machines like tanks and Bradleys and Apaches and artillery. Again that's where the Army focuses. And their leadship methodology reflects that, machines first, people second. The Corps uses the same sorts of equipment but the orgaizational ethos is every Marine a rifleman. As a result, the Corps' emphasis is people first, machines second. If Private Dogface has a pay problem ins the Army he has to go on line and fix it himself - despite his potential lack of computer skills. In the Marine Corps, Private Leatherneck's First Sergeant sends him to the Battalion S1 and they fix it pronoto. Next, the Corps is much more flexible, it is used to task organizing and it does this well, largely because the infantry is the primary arm and everyone else supports them - and they know it. The same is far from true in the Army on all 3 points - they don't task organize well, the infantry is often not the principle arm or branch and no one in the armor branch or in the mech infantry wants to accept that they are in a supporting role. Finally, the Corps is far, far better at waging counterinsurgency campaigns and has a demonstrable successful history of it starting in the Banana Wars of the '20's and '30's through Vietnam and on to Afghanistan. Conversely, the Army HATES Counterinsurgency despite the fact it will be a major task for decades to come and has tried hard to turn every counterinsurgency campaign it has fought into a conventional war, with so far a 100% failure rate. - Afghanistan is only one example of several.

I will give just one example. Starting with the picture that they are showing. They can’t even get the same head gear. Question answered!!!!