Should the United Sates Marine Corps be disbanded completely or unified with the United States Army?

Question

Many feel the Marine Corps is a 2nd Army. Some want to dissolve the Marine Corps all together. Why don't they just unify the Corps with the Army. If we train our Army troops like Marines, then what would be the difference? Wouldn't that make our Army better? I think it would make our troops more resourceful and adaptable. Personal bias aside, what do you think?

Answer 1

Marines and Army are very different. A Marine's primary training is amphibious warfare, whether they assault with amphibious boats or by air assault.



There is a concern with the Marine Corps being a 2nd land army. The correction will be made as the Marines downsize and return to their primary mission. They are beefing up their specialty training and their amphibious training.



We can't afford to train soldiers like Marines. There are simply too many of them. If we tried to train soldiers as Marines, where would we find that many people who could undergo the training? What would be the purpose of training hundreds of thousands of people to fight from ships? It's an entirely different concept and the training of soldiers to fight in a land army would suffer. Each Marine MEU (a reinforced battalion) has all of 4 tanks, they fight a different type battle than soldiers who have lots of armor.



The Marine Corps is increasing its number of specially trained Marines rather than looking to be a more generalized force. This is where the future of the Marine Corps lies.



EDIT-- One other point or, maybe, two. The command structure is entirely different. A Marine commander commands his air support, logistics, and fighting unit. This is necessary with a small consolidated unit like an MEU. Second, the equipment is totally different. You would not only have to train people for different types of equipment but, provide that equipment. The Sea Hawk (naval version of the Blackhawk) is different from the Army version. I can't speak for current helicopters but, during my time, the Army Huey was made of magnesium. The Navy/Marine Corps version was made of aluminum because salt air is highly corrosive to magnesium. That meant the naval versions of the Huey were smaller than most Army versions to make up for the heavier aluminum skin.



Close air support is the Marine Corps' heavy fire power in lieu of tanks. Is the Air Force going to modify its planes to land aboard ships and deploy them to support the Army's Marines? Would the Army have a new sea-going helicopter? Would the Army buy smaller helicopters like the AH-1 attack helicopter so you can put more of them aboard ship?

Answer 2

Unlikely, because of their PR-machine.



As a simple statement of fact the U.S. doesn't need the marine corps in order to be a military power. The marine corps' two main claims-to-fame are (1) they are America's "expeditionary force-in-readiness" and (2) they are trained, equipped and configured to perform forced-entry amphibious assault.



The U.S. Army has conducted both missions numerous times in it's 234 year history. It has functioned as an expeditionary force in the war with Mexico, the Spanish American War, the Philippine Insurrection, the Boxer Rebellion, the Korean War and arguably, WWI and the first & second Gulf Wars.



The U.S. Army has conducted amphibious assaults during the war with Mexico, the Civil War and WWII, among others. In fact, the army has conducted more (and larger) amphibious assaults than the marines have. (The marines take pains to *not* advertise that fact).



There were more soldiers in the Pacific, during WWII, then there were Marines in the world! Until 2006, there was NO Marine SOCOM unit and currently NO Marine unit in JSOC. Majority of amphibious missions after 9/11 have been performed by the Army and Joint Special Operations Command. (e.i. Rangers) and as stated before, Army has performed MORE and LARGE amphibious assaults then the Marines ever have or ever will.



Infantry training is practically the same for both Army and Marines. An extra 2 weeks of "Basic Combat Training" (to mostly teens) does not qualify or quantify the assessment that Marines are better prepared. Most of the Advanced Combat Military Schools are operated by the Army. ex. Air Assault, Air Borne, Sniper, OED, etc. They also have more "advanced" combat units: Green Berets, Deltas, Rangers, 160th Aviation, Airborne Units, etc.



In this era of dwindling resources something has to give. The army needs two more divisions. The corps should be reduced proportionately in order to make that happen.

Answer 3

bob35983: You're confused. Congress is only required to maintain a standing Army and Navy. It doesn't say anything about the Marines or the Air Force.



JD gave a great answer of why we do need the Marine Corps. You should go by that when you need an argument why we shouldn't disband them and make them into the Army. However, if push came to shove and Congress decided that cutting military branches could save money they could, in theory, drop us back to the Army and Navy. Here's how they could do it:



With the Air Force, that's the easy one. The Air Force used to be part of the Army as the Army Air Corps until 1947. They could just return them to Army control and then close down or consolidate bases that have aren't needed. Lacklund could be reduced in size and new trainees are just spread out between the Army's five bases. The biggest expense would most likely be restenciling Air Force markers to Army markers.



The Marines would be a lot more complicated. They are an unique fighting force that isn't the same as the Army in a traditional war. During the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan they have been used similar to the Army by fighting an land-based insurgency. If we have to go to war with North Korea or some other country it won't be the same.



One way they could do it is they could take the Marines and turn them into specialized divisions similar to how the Army has Airborne divisions. Similar to how you need to be Airborne qualified to be in the 82nd, you would have to go through a special course for the amphibious divisions that are made up from the Marines. The length of the course could make up for what's not taught in BCT but is taught in Recruit Training.



Or, they can take most of the Marines and merge them with the Navy. They could make new jobs to cover the traditional jobs the Marines already do with the Navy. A new Naval Infantry rating would be one example. Like with the Army theory, extra training would be needed to do their mission in addition to the training they would be getting in Navy Recruit Training. They could continue to use current training facilities or merge/close unneeded ones.



Right now there is no real reason to do so. The money saved probably wouldn't be that much because you're just replacing the branch they are in but you are still paying the same money to do the same mission. We may save money by having less general officers but the amount would be minimal. Plus you're paying to make them reflag from one branch to another. Then, you will have massive opposition especially from the retired USMC crowd who don't want their branch disbanded and merged into another.

Answer 4

All my military service was in various components of the US Air Force, and I'm proud of my service, which began in 1960 and ended in 1993.



I have the greatest respect for all of the other services. Each has its role and they are all able to work together to get the job done, whatever that job may be.



The Marine Corps has gone through this issue before--disbanding was even proposed in the World War II time frame. But Marines have proven their value repeatedly over the years--acting as America's premier amphibious service, supporting other services, filling the role of shock troops when that was what was needed.



So my answer to your question is no. The Marines are part of the Navy Department. They still sail with Navy capital ships. Their aviators are as good as the best of any other service. The system isn't broken, so let's not fix it.



Edit: I want to add a comment and review a little history in the process. Prior to the National Defense Act of 1947 there were two cabinet-level departments that dealt with defense. They were the War Department and the Department of the Navy. The National Defense Act had the effect of unifying these under one department, the Department of Defense. It also created the Department of the Air Force as an equal with the Department of the Army and the Department of the Navy.



The Marine Corps remained a component of the Department of the Navy with little change in its relationship to that service. Any attempt to reunify the Air Force as part of the Army would be a violation of this act, which was Constitutional. The Marine Corps could conceivably be dissolved or reorganized as part of the Army, but why do that?



It would create morale problems not only for the Marine Corps but also for other services that might be affected by the change.



At various times the interservice rivalry between the various uniformed services has been discussed negatively. I would suggest that rivalry has been at least as positive as it might have at times been negative. Through functional reorganizations, most recently of the medical services, duplication has been reduced without hurting the morale or readiness of the services.



Every service believes it is the best, and all are the best at what they are organized to do. It's a good system and there is no need to change it.

Answer 5

At least in combat arms, Army troops are trained like Marines. It's a common doctrine. There are small training differences, but for the most part, a squad of US Army infantry and a squad of USMC Infantry are going to have an identical tactical mindset.



That is also why we are so competitive with each other.



Where the USMC and the Army differ greatly is in strategic influence, logistical support capabilities, and mobility... big Army and big Navy stuff. World War 2 was probably a perfect representation of the differences in how each operates. While there was some crossover (US Marines in Sicily, US Army 25th ID in the Pacific, etc), for the most part the European theater was primarily an Army fight and the Pacific was primarily a Navy/Marine fight. The US Army is big and extremely heavy... and extremely slow because all our logistical assets are organic. We carry everything with us. While that limits how quickly we can deploy, once we get there we hit like a freight train and we can keep pushing. We aren't as hampered by logistical lines because we are better able to sustain ourselves with what we carry with us for longer periods of time. You won't find better heavy forces in the world. This made the open set piece warfare of the European theater our bread and butter. The Marines, by themselves, wouldn't have done as well on the European mainland continent. In addition to just not being a large enough of a force to cover that much of a front, their depth is limited to what can be logistically supported by the Navy because the Marines don't have their own mass logistical capabilities. What this does do, however, is make them very light and very, very fast. They can pick up and redeploy to a dynamically changing combat environment rapidly because they aren't moving nearly the amount of stuff we do in the Army. They only need to bring the guns and ammo... they don't have to pack up and move the entire wagon train. This made them ideally suited for the Island hopping campaign of the Pacific where they needed to able to hit limited and isolated combat zones in rapid succession. The Army wouldn't have done well in the Pacific at all. Besides the fact that we don't have boats, we would have been too slow. Without a Navy, the only rapid deployment forces we would have had is our airborne forces, which would be severely limited by range, airfield access, air superiority problems, etc.



Both capabilities are important, even in the modern age.

Answer 6

This all depends on your interests. When it came my time to enlist I had always been leaning Army, but I consider the Marines. The main reasons I chose Army were A) I don't like the water. I like the beach, but the idea of even the possibility of being out on some ship for 6 months made me want to puke and B) There is a much better chance of getting into airborne school in the Army. That was a priority for me, may not be for you. The water thing was what did it for me though. I know guys who were Marines and never set foot on a ship. And I know guys who spent a year of their 4 on one. So you never know. The possibility of it was a deal breaker for me. Being "shy" or "quiet" is irrelevant as to which branch to choose. Both branches have their share of all personality types. And after a few months in basic most of that will be out of your system...... It better be if you ever want to be a drill sergeant/instructor.

Answer 7

@ c6r2003: you have fallen for the "pacific was a Marine fight" propaganda.



During WWII, there were more Army Infantrymen in the Pacific than in the entire Marine Corps worldwide. There were 6 Marine Divisions fighting in the Pacific and almost 30 Army Divisions. Of the three Marine corps-level headquarters, two of them were ultimately commanded by Army generals.



For every Marine amphibious landing, there were four Army landings. Almost every single piece of Marine equipment - from belts to tanks - was designed by the Army.



The two senior commanders in the Pacific were a Soldier and a Sailor.



When it came time to occupy the Japanese home islands, it was the Army that did so.



While I would be the last to denigrate the fighting spirit and ability of the Marine in WWII, they did not win, or even dominate, the Pacific War.



Nor were there any Marine units at Sicily. The only Marine "unit" that came close to fighting in the ETO was the USS Texas' Marine Detachment that tried to sneak shore at Normandy to "reinforce" a Army unit. They were ordered out of the landing boats and back to their ship's duties.

Answer 8

For years there has been talk of a uni-servise,same uniform,same equipment,same training. The only separation would be insignia,and hats.The training part I agree,should be trained in the same boot,the secondary training is where the separation would start.That's one side or the coin, the other being the friendly competition between services,that gives me the right to say jar head or anchor clank-er, or grunts,fly boys, bus drivers ,to name a few.The best of best that would be the political side, one pot to through money in, cut the number of generals by 75%, and cost and waist by 50%.This action would never happen, as to much power would be lost by the politicians.. John j

Answer 9

The man is right, the marines are needed. My uncle was a US Marine. Volunteered from Canada. Marines are needed.

Answer 10

they have different jobs.and many people join the army over the USMC because of the marine corps rough life style

Answer 11

The Marines are needed.

Answer 12

Totally agree with JD. Very solid assessment.

Answer 13

Derrick;

Obviously you don't understand the mission.

The US Marines are the shock troops of the US Military, they don't dig in and consolidate, they keep on attacking.

Answer 14

No they should stay the way they are, a land division of the Navy. Thats what the Marines are. Their paychecks say United States Navy. lol i got alot of thumbs down for what? Saying that their paychecks are from the Navy? cuz they are haha

Answer 15

No, tis the other way round.



There is no Constitutional authority for a standing army.



@@@as for you, AD, "top contributor", you haven't a clue what you're talking about. Standing armies were anathema to the founders of this country and a standing army is not authorized. Militia were to be the defense of the country in conjunction with a navy Congress is directed to "provide & maintain" & the USMC has been part of the USN since 10 Nov 1775.

Answer 16

No

Answer 17

Who are the"many"....................you did one bowl too many today.