Should our military branches be combined into one branch?

Sgt Joe LaBranche — Thu, 25 Feb 2016 15:45:53 -0500

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Feb 25 at 2016 3:46 PM

LTC Stephen F. — Thu, 25 Feb 2016 15:46:53 -0500

No they should not Sgt Joe LaBranche
The USAF was the Army Air Force in WWII.
THe USMC is part of the Navy
The USCG is part of DHS
We used to have a war Department and a Department of the Navy. Since the founding of this nation, when combat was on land and sea only, we had a Navy and an Army. As aviation developed and later space travel the need for a third Branch developed and the USAF was birthed.
I submit that the missions and requirements for an Army, Navy, and Air Force justify the three separate branches be maintained.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2016 3:49 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 25 Feb 2016 15:49:15 -0500

I don't think so, could a couple of branches be folded together due to similarities of overall missions? Yes. But you still need an Army and a navy. Maybe once we have a space force we could just have one branch but not in this decade

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2016 3:51 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 25 Feb 2016 15:51:06 -0500

They essentially are one department.

Response by Liz Hodges Flores made Feb 25 at 2016 3:55 PM

Liz Hodges Flores — Thu, 25 Feb 2016 15:55:21 -0500

NOW IT SHOULD BE ON TRIBE !!!!-!!!!-!!!! !!!! THE NEGATIVE QUANTUM PORTHOLE OF SHATAN-SHAYAN HAS A MAGNETIC HOLD ON EARTH !!!!-!!!!-!!!!-!!!! SOON IT SHALL OPEN THE GATEWAY FOR SHATAN-SHAYAN TO COME HERE !!!!-!!!!-!!!!-!!!!

Response by SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2016 3:55 PM

SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 25 Feb 2016 15:55:40 -0500

I think this would break the traditions each individual branch has... We don't need to fix something that is not broken (even though the military loves to do that)

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Feb 25 at 2016 3:56 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Thu, 25 Feb 2016 15:56:24 -0500

I am content with a Combatant Commander and his joint force.

Response by SFC Wade W. made Feb 25 at 2016 4:05 PM

SFC Wade W. — Thu, 25 Feb 2016 16:05:44 -0500

No, each branch is distinctive in their differing roles during peace and war. The problem has become that each has tried to expand their role. If they continue to expand their roles and make themselves self sufficient then maybe we should dispense of the desperate branches but if we were to keep each branch in their own lane then effectiveness would once again win the day.

Response by LTC Thomas Tennant made Feb 25 at 2016 4:10 PM

LTC Thomas Tennant — Thu, 25 Feb 2016 16:10:49 -0500

Oh hell no....you are one trouble maker SGT LaBranche. Why would a devil dog Marine want to mix with a dog face Soldier. However, we could learn from tiny Israel and its IDF.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2016 4:14 PM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 25 Feb 2016 16:14:11 -0500

I am actually a fan of this. The creation of the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs created a superstructure for the military with the National Security Act of 1947. We are constantly looking for ways to shrink overhead and maintain combat power. People now days often cite the complexity which would be required and the immense amount of specialization in the branches of the military. Within each branch there are specializations though. The Army isn't made up of just one branch which does every job. Neither is the AF nor the Navy. I understand the complexity of the establishment, but we could do this. Goldwater-Nichols requires generals and flag officers to be joint certified already. We make our senior leaders have joint knowledge prior to putting them in positions of authority. I would still expect Navy officers to command ships and Army and Marine officers to command Brigades, Divisions and Corps, but the superstructure could be combined into one service at the Pentagon. The Pentagon police will probably show up to cart me off for saying so, but I think this can be accomplished. There just isn't any will to do so.

Response by MSG Wally Carmichael made Feb 25 at 2016 4:18 PM

MSG Wally Carmichael — Thu, 25 Feb 2016 16:18:30 -0500

My answer is NO. That would be extremely difficult. You may know, the medical community has been in the process of becoming one for many years now. They are all being trained at Joint Base San Antonio, formerly Fort Sam Houston, Texas. This alone has been one heck of fight because of many reasons, cultures being among the biggest.

Response by CPT Ahmed Faried made Feb 25 at 2016 4:21 PM

CPT Ahmed Faried — Thu, 25 Feb 2016 16:21:27 -0500

Response by SGT Dave Tracy made Feb 25 at 2016 4:38 PM

SGT Dave Tracy — Thu, 25 Feb 2016 16:38:51 -0500

While it's a idea that might be fun to play with on an intellectual level, in the real world, the answer must be NO.

Each branch has different core competencies--with some overlap between services, certainly--as well as different cultures and different histories. The Marines don't want to be the Army; the Army don't want to be the Navy; the Navy don't want to be the Coasties; and NOBODY wants to be the Air Force!
;-)

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2016 4:48 PM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 25 Feb 2016 16:48:08 -0500

This came up post-WWII and right now, I'd lean towards no given the long traditions and successes of each branch. However, if Capt Johnson was nominated to be SECDEF tomorrow, I'd probably make some changes. I'd stomp out any questions about removing Corpsmen from Marine units and I'd look to increase our amphibious fleet in the Navy rather than spending more money on blue-water ships. I'd even consider putting the Air Force and Army again under a single service secretary since they have joint bases and USAF provides much of the Army's fixed-wing air support. Army already has lots of integrated rotary wing. Perhaps this would bring the Air Force back into the fold in terms of grit and guts (sorry, Air Force) and eliminate unnecessary overhead in some places. We've all heard the joke: the Army and Navy are military services, the Air Force is a corporation, and the Marines are a religion.

Response by COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM made Feb 25 at 2016 4:53 PM

COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM — Thu, 25 Feb 2016 16:53:18 -0500

A few thoughts/questions:
- Problem. What problem do we have currently by having separate military branches that would be solved by combining into one branch? Generally we have a problem and search for a solution. We do not normally propose a solution that has no problem to solve.
- 2nd/3rd Order Impacts. What second and third order positive and negative impacts would result from combining into one branch? I see more negative than positive impacts.
- Domains. Doctrinally there are now six domains: land, sea, air, cyber, space, and human. Each branch specializes in one domain (Army/land, Navy/sea, Air Force air) with some domains not having a specialized branch (cyber, space, human). Operations within each domain are significantly different so how would combining into one branch account for the major differences among the domains?
- History. American military history and capability has been built upon the premise of "not all eggs in one basket" and complementary capability/effects. Examples include our nuclear triad (subs, bombers, missiles) and our doctrine (joint combined arms).
- With all above stated, there are areas that should be reviewed to increase efficiency, effectiveness, and bang for buck for taxpayer money. Examples include: independent air capability for each service (why?) and service oriented funding but purple (COCOM) employment leads to independent service decisions to the detriment of COCOM CDRs.

Response by Sgt Tom Cunnally made Feb 25 at 2016 4:53 PM

Sgt Tom Cunnally — Thu, 25 Feb 2016 16:53:42 -0500

Not only NO but Hell NO!!!..Some idiots in Congress tried to combine the Army & Marines after WWII and that so upset some Marines that one very brave Colonel sat in his car with the motor running and garage door closed & took his life. His name was Colonel Mike "Red" Edson...and I remember reading his story as a young kid. Thankfully Chesty and other Marine Senior Officers convinced Washington DC idiots that combining the Army and Marines was a dumb ass idea & the thought of it pissed them off..

Response by Sgt Tammy Wallace made Feb 25 at 2016 4:57 PM

Sgt Tammy Wallace — Thu, 25 Feb 2016 16:57:29 -0500

nope

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2016 4:58 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 25 Feb 2016 16:58:28 -0500

No!

Response by SPC James Dollins made Feb 25 at 2016 5:10 PM

SPC James Dollins — Thu, 25 Feb 2016 17:10:45 -0500

NO! They need to stay the way they are! We obviously split them for a reason. They need to keep it that way!

Response by CPO Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2016 5:56 PM

CPO Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 25 Feb 2016 17:56:44 -0500

I believe the reason for this logic is all the Joint Task Forces That we have been extremely involved with sense 2001. They basically take the best fit task element from the different branches and bring them together to accomplish the mission. This works because of the individual and the mind set of the services to tackle a task.
I was an IA for USACE US ARMY CROPS OF ENGINEERS in Iraq 2010-2011 we had engineers from all branches it worked well because we brought all of our experiences from the branches into one. One of the Generals was writing a paper and I believe it is in the works to have a Joint Engineering Command like SOC. This concept would be OPCON TACCON and ADCON would be to the service they belong to. This will work as you can combine training for missions and be more suited for down range. This will also help when an RFF Request For Forces goes they will be able to place the appropriate forces to that mission. This will work for Engineering and could work for like maybe Security Forces. I do not know about everything else. Would not make one service just OPCON and TACCON element. This has already happen in AFG the last Engineering units were all combined under one C2 flag. Believe it or not it was the Navy Flag.

Response by Cpl Matthew Wall made Feb 25 at 2016 6:07 PM

Cpl Matthew Wall — Thu, 25 Feb 2016 18:07:55 -0500

The annual Rallypoint question is upon us.....

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2016 7:20 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 25 Feb 2016 19:20:28 -0500

Yes. And we should stop wearing rank too.

Response by SFC Dave Wynn made Feb 25 at 2016 7:38 PM

SFC Dave Wynn — Thu, 25 Feb 2016 19:38:13 -0500

This is a tough crowd I floated the idea no long ago of just maybe combining like all aviation or ground force into one. Well that got a big no. You can't tread on anyone else turf.

Response by SGT Robert Hawks made Feb 25 at 2016 8:19 PM

SGT Robert Hawks — Thu, 25 Feb 2016 20:19:02 -0500

No not at all

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2016 8:58 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 25 Feb 2016 20:58:31 -0500

Nope....I see multiple MOS's in a headquarters company that struggle to work together never mind being from different branches with different missions and different doctorine

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2016 9:00 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 25 Feb 2016 21:00:43 -0500

I'll play devil's advocate.
Given the current constitution, we are required to maintain an army and a navy. Shrinking from five to two is easy. The mechanism is already in place for the coast guard to be absorbed into the navy, so I won't bother with that. The marines could quickly be subsumed by the army and treated as a special branch, like SF or the rangers, (hell, let them keep the uniforms, and create a special school for them) administered by the army and operationally controlled by the navy. The air force would disappear, long range (bombers) and logistical ( c-5 etc) air craft would transfer to the navy and short range tactical/support ( fighters, a10, c130) air craft would go to the army.
Piece of cake.
Going down to a single branch would be more problematic (constitutional amendment notwithstanding). With two branches there is a give and take between them just like there is now between the five. The individual branches fight for their interests and budgets. How does a single military entity do that? How will promotions at the highest levels work? As it stands now, we know army non combat arms officers will plateau in their careers; the chief of staff will never be a finance or intelligence officer. The same thing applies in the navy, a quick look at the top shows they come from the carriers, not submarines or the fighter wings.
So will a career naval officer in command of a single military force fight more tanks, conversely will a career army officer fight for another carrier?
It's an interesting dilemma. It could be solved by requiring commanders to jump from ship to shore at some point in their careers or the civilian leadership could give specific guidance as to what capabilities they expect out of the unified military. Either way it's an interesting mental exercise.

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Feb 25 at 2016 9:01 PM

SSG Gerhard S. — Thu, 25 Feb 2016 21:01:43 -0500

I say no. Each branch has missions, and requirements that require different levels and types of specialized training. I think it makes sense to keep the branches separate to ensure competency, and effectiveness.

Response by SSgt Mark Lines made Feb 25 at 2016 9:13 PM

SSgt Mark Lines — Thu, 25 Feb 2016 21:13:11 -0500

Nope, because off the loss of traditions that makes each service strong. Canada did this in the 60's. Even though they still have one service, they recently brought back all the former names and traditions.

Response by Capt Mark Strobl made Feb 25 at 2016 11:37 PM

Capt Mark Strobl — Thu, 25 Feb 2016 23:37:40 -0500

Sgt Joe LaBranche - Unify the branches? That's. Plain. Crazy.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 26 at 2016 7:21 AM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 26 Feb 2016 07:21:40 -0500

??? maybe in the future that the technologies had advanced so far that a "trooper" can fight in the Air, on the sea surface or land and also on the sea floor ....

Response by SGM Robert Speakman made Mar 3 at 2016 2:46 PM

SGM Robert Speakman — Thu, 03 Mar 2016 14:46:50 -0500

No they should not each branch has their make-up their units, this would drop morale if they were to combine them

Response by Logan Elick made Mar 1 at 2018 10:53 AM

Logan Elick — Thu, 01 Mar 2018 10:53:36 -0500

yes it would be easier to combine all the branches than to keep them all seperate

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Mar 1 at 2018 11:26 AM

SGM Bill Frazer — Thu, 01 Mar 2018 11:26:09 -0500

Please we have a tough enough time in the past with service coordination- throw it all together and we would never it it straightened out.

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 25 at 2020 2:58 PM

Maj Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 25 Apr 2020 14:58:41 -0400

Short answer would be ”No”. My flight commander in Randolph AFB back in 2006 was a Royal Canadian Air Force major, he mentioned he graduated from the Royal Military College of Canada, an inter-service military academy, I had to ask how it worked and his opinion on it. He talked to me about the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), the process of unification and integration. Back then, I didn’t think it was a bad idea. The idea started pre WW1, but it didn’t take life until the 1960s. The Canadian government was concerned that spending was out of control, their Department of Defence was targeted because it received 25% of the government’s budget, it had incurred large cost overruns in major acquisition projects.(1) Sounds familiar? Its supporters argued that the process would eliminate duplication, streamline the command structure, and save revenue.(2) Critics argue that unification was devised to reassert civilian control and direction over the services.(3) It is also argued that military integration and unification had a devastating effect on the moral, the traditions, and the esprit de corps of the Canadian military, “it finished off what little morale was left in the post-Korean War Canadian military.(4) According to Wilf Lund, the policy had significant flaws, and both its rationale and the means of implementation were obscure. (5) I am not sure if the end result justified the changes, the CAF is now on the long process of recovery, out are the unified uniforms with the old rifle green for all with the same ranks and no service distinction. The higher command is going to continue as a unified command, but the service environmental commands have been realigned to maintain the service history and traditions pre-unification, and the Maritime and Air commands are again known as the Royal Canadian Navy and Air Force. Land Force Command is now the Canadian army.(6) There are many reasons why you want to maintain a level of service independence, knowledge, traditions, and morale. We also need to have personnel that can look at their respective domain in detail, understand how to operate on it, how to exploit it and how to use it to support other domains, we need jointness, but we also need expertise on the specific domains.

Notes:
1. Wilf Lund, “Integration and Unification”, CFB Esquimalt Naval Military Museum, 2020, Available at: https://navalandmilitarymuseum.org/archives/articles/controversies/integration-and-unification/
2. Ibid.
3. John C. Hood, “Defence Policy and the Unification of the Canadian Armed Forces: An Analysis”, 1975 . Theses and Dissertations (Comprehensive). 1515. Available at: https://scholars.wlu.ca/etd/1515
4. Geoffrey D.T. Shaw, “The Canadian Armed Forces and Unification”, Defense Analysis, Vol 17, No. 2, 2001, 159-174
5. Wilf Lund, “Integration and Unification,” CFB Esquimalt Naval Military Museum, 2020, Available at https://navalandmilitarymuseum.org/archives/articles/controversies/integration-and-unification/
6. “Canadian armed forces to be 'royal' once again”, BBC, 16 Aug 2011, Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-Canada-14546579

Integration and Unification - CFB Esquimalt Naval and Military Museum

In 1964 the Liberal government of Lester B. Pearson tabled its White Paper on Defence. The White Paper proposed an integrated administrative structure for the Canadian Armed Forces under a single Chief of Defence Staff (CDS). The arguments for integration were plausible and the new structure was implemented and accepted with some reservations by the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN). Then in 1966, a bill was introduced to unify the forces. Unification...