Should Army and Marines (or components of) consolidate?

No.

Nope. Army is great at taking and holding ground. Marines are great at taking it - quickly. So says the AF dude.

In response on this once again, let me be profoundly clear there's absolutely nothing analytical to this equation ! Sure the Army has it's strengths and so it should remain it's own entitie. The United States Marine Corps is and always will be at the for front of the sea/land expeditionary force. They will be at the door step of any radical worldwide in conjunction with the absolute finest Naval fighting forces! Not taking anything from the Army's capability, but to suggest such a shift of joint merger is preposterous. Their oorah-semper Fi comes from a part of their anatomy and cannot be combined with the Hooah of the Army. I have hadthe distinct pleasure of serving with some outstanding veterans of all branches. I will be the first to say that a United States Marine stands out in a crowed, with such distinction which set them up a notch above the gold stripe down the pant leg of their brethren on the other side of the isle. So absolutely no way too this from any level....

No! The USMC is the only branch that can completely sustain itself in combat operations: Ground, Air, Logistics all ready to go at a moments notice.
If you want to get rid of stuff, start chopping the civilians and legislative branch folks who make procurement a ridiculous process!

Nope. Because then there is gonna be another huge change to the Army uniform and I think we can all agree that the Army changes uniforms like a two year old at a play date. Also I didn't earn the Eagle Globe and Anchor being in the Army. That's like giving an E-5 or E-6 slot to someone who has no prior experience in a MOS they just graduated from.

As a former Army recruiter I found many young adults trying to make life choices for their future. Opening just one door with an opportunity to see what's available to them under the Department of Defense for all services has to be better than visiting 3 or 4 different recruiters. There will always be a percentage of recruits who join for service of country and they will typically choose a branch that their family is already had a history with. Allowing someone to see what's available across all services based on their qualifications and availability only serves to make a better recruit. Limiting those choices may build resentment at some point during their service. Opening everything to a new recruit would also help with individuals who may not make it in one service due to a training issue (not a problem child) find something in another field or branch that they may excell in. The DoD has to be looking at ways to save money across the board and some services are already lowering their goals for year. The DoD needs to find ways to compete with job opportunities in new and exciting ways or it will continue to see a decline from all services. I don't think we need break down any service into one large service but only change the enlistment process to one DoD mission and that is to find the best individual for each position. I still believe in the long and storied traditions of all the services built over the centuries. Having someone in the right job only benefits a better military and a more motivated individual.

My service was with the Navy for some 20 years, but during that time I had the advantage to work closely with Marines. First as a junior PO, working with a marine contingent assigned to my submarine, secondly as a security and liaison officer to a marine detachment on a submarine tender, and lastly as a Command Duty Officer calling on marines to respond to emergency situations which arose, as well as the endless drills dealing with the nuclear aspects of a naval vessel carrying such materials. What I found was that the Marines had a very distinct view about their military task and responsibility and I never met a marine who did not deeply feel that he was in a special group of military people. My brief association with the Army was a more relaxed view of their duties and responsibilities. I do not take anything away from the Army or the Marine Corps, but the Corps seems to have a more severe training program, in my experience, and their response to my needs and calls were always fast and severely effective. On one occasion, in response to a special drill, the first marine who arrived was stark naked except for a bandolier of ammo, and his rifle! I just feel that the Army has a similar set of duties, but while a large part of the Army's response is both invasion and occupation, the Marines are more styled and trained for being the first on the scene to pave the way and take the first thrust of the enemy. I am NOT a Marine, I am Navy, but my experience tells me there is a special something about being a Marine, just as there is about being a Submariner!

NO!!

The training standards are different for a reason. Each branch has a different purpose. Each branch needs to train for that purpose much the same as each military occupational specialty refines their training for their purpose. Each branch has its own significant mindset and skill set.

Well there's a leagal reason for the marines vs the army. You can call in the Marines with out congressional approval for up to 90 days.