Why does the U.S.A need 4 Branches of the Armed Services? (ARMY, Air Force, Navy, Marines)

so we can 5 different pots of money to trick the American public in paying higher taxes

Do we really need 5? No. Will we ever truly be a joint force? No. We will work together, but we will constantly be forced apart by title 10, and the all powerful greenery that is called money. To combine the forces, would require so much time and money. Even if it started now, we wouldn't see the final product in our lifetimes

We each have a specialized mission. Examples: Navy-Sea/Ocean warfare, Army-Occupational duties, Marine Corps-Rapid deployment forces, Air force-Air support/surveillance

I'd say three. Army for major land operations, Navy for global strategic force projection, and Marine Corps. as a "strategic QRF".

"If you look at it there were originally two (2)..." Wrong. The Marines were formed long before a US Navy was created, and didn't come under the control of the Department of the Navy until 1834.

Question: "Why does the U.S.A need 4 Branches of the Armed Services?"

Answer: It doesn't, and it is unsustainable.

Chet Richards does an excellent job of discussing the reality and some of the options available in his book "Neither Shall the Sword" (http://bit.ly/CR_NSTS).

It's called Zero-based budgeting developed by SecDef McNamara in the 1960s. In zero based budgeting, every program needs to be justified each year or else the department losses that program. The logic was that in order to spend money efficiently under federal standards, each program needs to have performance metrics and be held accountable. It has become a joke because each program uses its own arbitrary method to track performance. Therefore, each program request itself to stay in existence year after year. To kill off a whole branch of the military, you would need to get rid of all the small programs that make that branch.

It's not out of the question to merge more parts of the DoD. They have merged warehouses in each Department since the 90s through the working capital funds. It's only a matter of time when we start centralizing contracting and supplies Department wide. As we automate military reporting and cut headquarters units, chunks of each departments budget is going to disappear and the military will become efficient. There also has been a push for interdepartmental activities lie working with DHS or DOI.

Everyone blames the JCS for overblowing the national security threats and it may seem unchecked. But there are actually several controls in the process: Council of Colonels, Senior Review Groups, Army Resources Board, Planning Programming Budgeting Committees. Then, you have guidance from the National Security Strategy and Defense Planning Guidance. The GAO does criticize Defense on a lot of estimates,but America will never take the risk. It is better to have an overmanned professionally trained force than meet shortages by contracting it out to mercenaries who could be more crazy.

This question has been around for years, but had not yet been answered. There are some jobs that are interchangeable, and some are not. For example, I was a Navy Corpsman, and while working in a hospital, any service can cover, however while deployed, this is where the differences are. Could an AF medic integrate with a MC infantry unit without proper mission and physical training? Could an Army medic function as an Independent Duty Corpsman (IDC) on a ship or a sub? Could a Navy Corpsman operate as an AF flight crew member?

All these deployed positions require extensive training beyond medical training, this is what makes military personal special.

So, to answer your question, no, yet, but maybe sometime in the future.

Different missions, different histories, different expertise. Of course, when we operate jointly, many of the differences are minimized. Also, the Constitution specifically authorizes the Army and the Navy (including Marines) differently. Also, be careful. Exclude the USCG at your own RallyPoint peril!

Three Branches, the USMC is a part of the USN.