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
If I learned one thing from this discussion, it would be that Marines REALLY need to get off their high horse.
(4)
(0)
LCpl Cody Collins
Not a high horse, The Marine Corps know how to break a man down to nothing . And build him/ her up again I to something greater than themselves. It's a whole new mind set, not just training
(1)
(0)
Cpl James R. " Jim" Gossett Jr
LCpl Cody Collins - OooRah my Brother...The Pride stays with a MARINE Forever..."Once a Marine, Always a Marine"...never heard Once a Soldier...etc..
(1)
(0)
LCpl Sidney Green
Cpl James R. " Jim" Gossett Jr - You got that right.
"I am the rocks of the eternal shore...crash against me, AND BE BROKEN."
"I am the rocks of the eternal shore...crash against me, AND BE BROKEN."
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
Main reason I would oppose that move is: Marines have spent way too much time, effort, pride, and money building their image to waste the investment. If they rolled into just another special group like rivron, mobile security, rangers, etc. They would lose much of their recognition and therefore versatility.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
I cannot see how the drastically different doctrinal philosophies of war fighting between the two services can be consolidated. It takes a lot more than a mere perception of similarity based on a focus on combat arms.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
I feel that we should stay separated so that each branch can stay focused on their unique tasks that they are designed and prepare for. Consolidation for a business stand point might make sense but from a smooth running machine I feel that it would make more sense to leave it as it is.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
Being one of those rare birds (hardly unique) that proudly served in both, I'd have to say no.
Certainly much more similar than back in my day, they're still different enough to merit their own branch.
Way more complicated than it appears on the surface.
Certainly much more similar than back in my day, they're still different enough to merit their own branch.
Way more complicated than it appears on the surface.
(4)
(0)
Sgt Frank Rinchich
I am a Marine, I do my job
You are a solider you do your job
There are things Marines do better then the Army and there are things the Army do better then the Marine Corps .
Why try and change something that has worked for over 230 years.
Even if you made it all army. they would still have to brake it down to amphibious assault, and a large force to hold what the assault force took , you have that now. Marines as amphibious assault and Army with there heavy equipment and large force . you gain nothing.
You are a solider you do your job
There are things Marines do better then the Army and there are things the Army do better then the Marine Corps .
Why try and change something that has worked for over 230 years.
Even if you made it all army. they would still have to brake it down to amphibious assault, and a large force to hold what the assault force took , you have that now. Marines as amphibious assault and Army with there heavy equipment and large force . you gain nothing.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
A resounding NO from me. The Marines were designed to be a light strike force while the Army was geared more towards long-term sustainment during wartime. The Marines come in and hit 'em fast and hard and the Army comes in behind them to provide cover and support for a Marine withdrawal and an Army occupation. That is precisely the way it was designed to work.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
Absolutely not, totally different mission and tactics. Besides if everyone could be a Marine, they would call it the Army. Semper FI.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
No. They should not consolidate. I love the USMC, but a "merger" if you will, will be very costly but also dilute the traditions and customs of more than 239 years. There are very distinct differences between both branches. It's not a practicle or cost saving move. Let them be. How about we fix our VA program...hey, there's an idea.
(4)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Fix the VA? Since the scandal came out, in some circumstances, the wait times have become worse. It's like anything else the government sticks its hand into. There is little accountability and lots of pencil whippage.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
No, not at all. Just because they both "run and gun" does not mean that they are similar. The Marine Corps is an Expeditionary Amphibious Force. I can not see any benefit to the thought of combining the services. No offense to any Solider, but there are just fundamental differences between a Marine and a Solider, and the making of the same.
(4)
(0)
LtCol (Join to see)
Chief: Great summery. The main difference, of course, between the Army and the Corps is that we are Marines and they are not.
When I was in recruit training, one of my drill instructors said, "John Kennedy can call himself the President of the United States, but he can't call himself a Marine."
When I was in recruit training, one of my drill instructors said, "John Kennedy can call himself the President of the United States, but he can't call himself a Marine."
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
No, here is something to consider. I'm sorry that I can't pull up a link or source for this. I read it quite some time ago and also used it in one of my own articles. I have read a multitude of reports and statistics on the Vietnam war just to make more sense of it myself. There were many lessons to be learned from our time there.
In an attempt to determine what had gone wrong in Vietnam, a group of military bean counters, did what they do and crunched their numbers, files and data and came up with the following:
"After about 1969-70 all line units started to degrade in performance, morale and effectiveness (probably due to the lack of support at home) interracial, discipline and drug problems started to escalate." They did not paint a very good picture of the 'in country' military after 1970, but they went on to say,....."In all but Marine and Special forces units who upheld their professionalism through out the prosecution of the war."
Granted, todays civilian/military relations are much different than they were then, but what can happen once can happen again. Apparently there is a non quantifiable difference in the Regular Army and the Marine Corps that does affect their performance. This is certainly something to be considered in any thoughts of merging the two.
In an attempt to determine what had gone wrong in Vietnam, a group of military bean counters, did what they do and crunched their numbers, files and data and came up with the following:
"After about 1969-70 all line units started to degrade in performance, morale and effectiveness (probably due to the lack of support at home) interracial, discipline and drug problems started to escalate." They did not paint a very good picture of the 'in country' military after 1970, but they went on to say,....."In all but Marine and Special forces units who upheld their professionalism through out the prosecution of the war."
Granted, todays civilian/military relations are much different than they were then, but what can happen once can happen again. Apparently there is a non quantifiable difference in the Regular Army and the Marine Corps that does affect their performance. This is certainly something to be considered in any thoughts of merging the two.
(4)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google