Pros/Cons of having separate brances of the Military

Great Debates
1

I’ve never served in the armed forces, or worked for them, so I’m approaching this with a fair degree of ignorance. I’m interested in honest, informed (if possible) opinions.

Besides institutional inertia, is there a compelling reason why we should maintain separate branches for the US armed forces? It seems to me that there is a fair amount of waste in doing so. I suspect that there is a lot of redundancy that could be eliminated by creating one unified “US Defense Force” (or whatever you want to call it), particularly among the support and administration functions.

I’m as big a fan of tradition as the next person, but it seems to me that we could create a more streamlined, efficient, and possibly more flexible military by unifying the branches. Said unified military would have one quartermaster corps, one JAG corps, one logistics group, etc, supplying all of the military’s needs, eliminating the redundancy inherent in the current system.

A member of the armed services would be posted based on their “skill set” (is this what the Army calls an MOS?). For example, a Blackhawk pilot would be just that, as opposed to an Army, Navy or Marine pilot. An armorer would be an armorer, and could be transferred wherever there was a need for an armorer, whether that be in what is now the Marine Corps or what is now the Air Force.

Obviously there are some specialized roles out there - someone wishing to specialize in nuclear reactors is going to remain in the naval forces, and any aviator needed on board an aircraft carrier would have to have been trained and currently proficient in carrier landings. There would be people who for most of their career could identify themselves as “navy” or “army,” but without the official designation as such.

I understand there would be a lot of resistance from within the separate branches, and probably from retired members, but is there a good, compelling, logical reason to maintain the separateness we currently have?

2

Canada has a unified service. I wonder what their experience has been

3

I too would like to know too, if anyone has anything to say in this area.
I think the main reason is tradition, but besides tradition there may be concerns that at a high level (global strategy level) someone with expertise in one area may not know what to do with resources form another. For example, someone with an “Army” type background may not get what the big deal is about ships. That person may under utilize them. Or not use them at all. Personally, I think that it could be done, and I think it would make the military more efficient and less expensive.

4

That’s kind of what I was going to say; it would be easy enough to amalgamate support functions at a DoD level, but you’ll still need what would basically amount to the separate services, at least at an operational and tactical level.

5

But aren’t we seeing some of that amalgamation already? If I understand the situation correctly, we have Marines and Army personnel both operating in similar ways in Iraq (please, someone correct me if I’m way off base here). Why the necessity to have some wearing Marine uniforms and some wearing Army uniforms?

I wonder how much of an effect such a unification would have at the operational and tactical level. There would (I assume) be an organizational structure that would accommodate a certain amount of specialization or emphasis, much the way the current services do, but I could see it being more about function and less about a uniform (maybe we have groups within the USDF like Aviation, Amphibious Warfare, Mechanized Infantry, whatever), such that as you advance through the officer ranks you tend to accumulate expertise in a particular arena of military service.

I never said it would be easy, but it was an idea I don’t think I’ve ever heard tossed about in the public forum.

I wonder if one couldn’t start in that direction with the things that (to my uneducated eye) aren’t branch-specific (like payroll, contracting, JAG), and effectively create a fifth branch of the military which would, over time, grow to encompass more and more roles until there is enough of a critical mass to unify everything.

6

What do they do now? All the heads of the different branches get together and discuss/set up joint tactics, then the CiC makes the final call, no? (Or something like that, at least in theory.)

Why wouldn’t it work just the same way, except with different titles?

7

Concerns:

  1. Tradition. The Corps is the Corps, the Green Berets are the Green Berets, etc.
  2. Budgets. By having different branches, groups can specialize without as MUCH concern about losing their focus. If the Corps was folded into the Army, would we still have the light units trained in beach assaults? We NEED heavy armor, light armor, striker teams, etc. The different branches helps ensure that each has its specialty, even with the overlap. Submarine forces lose out when a carrier guys takes charge in the Navy. Helo pilots get shafted by the jet jockeys, and the Air Force acts as if all you need is Strategic bombers. If we put everyone together, I could see certain areas getting the shaft.

Positive:
Radios that work on all frequencies. Clean chain of command in the zone. Interchangeable parts. Fewer airframes to support (the Corps and the Army have different flippin’ whirlybirds, for example).

8

I think it would work. And if I were king of the U.S. That is the way that it would be. I was just listing what I thought the barriers were. I think the biggest barrier is tradition, and the next biggest is arguments about how to structure the force (not how to structure the force, but the arguments). I think it would fairly easy to come up with a viable structure, but I think each branch will try to put themselves in a position of importance.

I think that if we ever get to the point where the is serious consideration of joining the branches, that the people in charge will be able to get past this and come up with a viable force.

9

The amalgamation of the Canadian Armed Forces did not go well at first. The three branches opposed it vigorously, leading to at least one firing. Opposition was based on two objections:

  1. It violated tradition, and
  2. It would be bad for esprit de corps.

Of course, a lot of the initial difficulties were self-fulfilling prophecies. The Army, Navy and Air Force didn’t want to amalgamate, fought the process, and didn’t like it when it happened. Their complaints were, to a large extent, circular; it’ll be bad or morale because we don’t like it, and we don’t like it because it’ll be bad for morale. Had the senior officer corps publically supported the government, as they should have done, the resulting morale problems would have been lessened.

But in fairness, some aspects of the amalgamation were clumsily handled, such as making everyone wear green uniforms and dumping the Navy and Air Force rank structures. (Much of those things have long since been reversed; there are distinct Navy, Air Force and Army uniforms again.)

Whether or not the long term result saved money or lives is really quite impossible to say, since we can’t go back and replay history without amalgamation. My guess is that the long term effects were negligible. The Canadian Armed Forces declined precipitously in capability from 1968 until the 1990s, but largely due to budget cuts, political interference and very poor military leadership; the same problems would have occurred with or without amalgamation.

You still have guys in boats and guys in tanks and guys in airplanes, and you’re going to unify the command structure at SOME level… it’s not like the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force all built their own Pentagons.

10

Inter-service rivalry is an important factor in the esprit de corps of the military. You fight for your country, but you also fight because you’re in the best damned unit in the best damned service in the damned military.

When the Canadian government forced all soldiers to wear the same uniforms, morale plummeted. Eventually, they gave each service back their distinctive uniforms.

I was in the Warrant Officer’s mess at CFB Edmonton when the first person walked in wearing his restored service uniform. The place erupted in cheers, and we partied all night.

Military tradition is a very dangerous thing to screw with. Especially when done by bean-counters.

11

The USMC is a branch of the US Navy. It’s budget is administered through the Department of the Navy. I think there was a proposal to rename the whole ball of wax the Dept. Of The Navy & Marines Corps, but it apparently didn’t clear the Congress.

12

I am fully aware that we have 3.5 branches - Army, Navy (who gets the Corps) & Air Force - with the Coast Guard in times of war. Special Forces used to inlclude participants from Army, Navy & Air Force - but no Marines.

But if it was all combined, the Corps would probably go away and be part of the Army somehow (they get all types of soldiers, the navy gets boats, and the air force gets planes).

Algher - kicked out of the Corps many years ago.

13

Pro for separate branches:
It leads to specialization and differentiation, which means each Branch gets really good at it’s specialty and doesn’t really bother with things outside of that. The Air Force gets really good at things that fly and doesn’t really bother with tanks. The Army doesn’t worry about seaborne activity and specializes on things far inland. The Navy, and the Marines, work with the oceans and the shores around them. Whilst the Marines and the Army share a lot of skills, their missions are actually quite different as entire organizations.

Status of forces means that the Army (for example) can’t invade somewhere on it’s own hook - they need the buy-in of the other branches. Means command is distributed somewhat, and acts as a challenge for the ‘rogue unit’ factor. Although this is kinda moot what with the power of some branches (Air Force and Navy) for fully independent offensive operations, but they can’t really take and hold ground without the Army, so I guess it kinda works.

Tradition as mentioned - this is a big deal in all the Branches of Service. I’d add one anecdote - they changed the uniforms on us in the AF in 1992, requiring an ‘air crew’ style badge replacing all of our unit and skill badges on our BDUs. The aircrew-style badge had just our name, skill area, and rank on it. We lost all our unit badges - we used to have a squadron, wing, and AF unit badge, as well as name on one side’s breast pocket and US Air Force on the other, along with a skill / MOS badge. And we were pissed when they took all that way. Finally they went back to the old way in like 1995 or so and everyone relaxed. But traditions are really really important for unit cohesion and morale.

Cons:
Leads to more complex deployments. The Army can’t fly it’s own troops into battle or transport it’s tanks without the Air Force and Navy, so any Order of Battle is orders of magnitude more complex.

Also, you need to make sure the systems of command and control mesh; the Army doesn’t do fixed-wing aircraft, so any close air support needs to be Air Force, Navy, or Marines. Means you need to develop a system for all three, but since each has it’s own budget and acquisitions, means you have to make 3 systems work together.

Finally, each Service will act to try to keep itself as the primary service, and will attempt to poo-poo the others as unimportant. I’ve heard died-in-the-wool Zoomies talk about how the Army is totally unnecessary (“targets for our bombs,” was how the Army was dismissed in one discussion), so there’s always going to be that struggle for supremacy between the Services

14

It hurts tradition, fine, but lets think long term here. America won’t change over to the metric system because of tradition but it isn’t a big deal, it doesn’t hurt American business or American education. Why is this even an issue for the military which prides itself on effectiveness?

15

I’m all in favour of seperate branches. See particularly my highly popular proposal to create a new branch, distinct from all others and concerned solely with aggresive actions. Whereby all the others are confined to defensive ones, hence the Defense Forces. To order otherwise would be an unlawful order.

There’s your recruitment problem, moral dilemma, duty to tradition and every other issue associated with military service gone, right there.

16

Our defensive tactics depend on our ability to kick the shit out of the enemy. In their backyard, not ours. I don’t see how anything else would make much sense. A purely defensive force (if you can somehow define that for me in tactical terms) would be a waste of time. It makes more sense in tactics and budget to have one force that can act defensively and offensively. Tactically they are two sides of the same coin. What you need is a military that can act in the defense when needed and then switch to the offense when able. Which is what we have now.

17

I’m not entirely certain of the cohesion of the different branches, but it seems to me a great pro of being seperate is that if one branch has a breakdown in communication/beauracracy for whatever reason the other ones can keep going strong (though obviously weakened some by their lack of their bretheren). With a totally unified military if something braks down EVERYTHING goes to hell.

Obviously I’m oversimplifying it (there are so many channels I’m sure they can bypass SOME of the occasional breaks), but it seems this is a pretty good boon.

18

I’m not sure I buy that, Sam. Again, I think a lot of that is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The military’s morale plummeted because they chose to make it plummet; they were angry that the government did something to make them angry. Senior officers publicly undermined the effort, for which they frankly all should have been fired instantly, but the government, as it so often does, did everything half-assed.

I actually WAS in the Army and don’t ever recall that I worked harder because I thought I was better than the guys in the Navy or the Air Force. I remember my grandfathers telling me war stories and don’t remember them ever saying they fought because they were better than the Army or the Navy. For that matter, they didn’t think about much except keeping themselves and their buddies alive. Inter-service rivalry is primarily something that exists at the upper command levels, because they’re competing for resources; at times it’s reached preposterous levels. The U.S. service branches have gotten into rivalries that make one wonder if perhaps they forgot they were fighting for the same country, and the result is waste and graft.

Again, that’s not to say the government didn’t screw it up anyway. The truth is that instead of combining three branches of the service, they created six sub-branches. A better-planned amalgamation could have allowed for the high-level integration (which made a lot of sense) while allowing people to keep their uniforms. Shenanigans of that sort will continue anyway; I served for six years and we changed uniforms several times, and that was long after the services again had distinct looks.

19

Why not a compromise?

Remove the administrative functions from all services. Create the United States Pencil Pushing Command (USPPC) which handles all purchasing, personnel, accounting, supply logistics, building maintenance, and legal support for all branches.

Then leave the rest of it the hell alone…

20

But they’re all interlinked. If the Army falls apart, then the Air Force isn’t gonna be able to pick up the slack - no tanks, no ground troops. Likewise, if the Air Force falls apart, the Army won’t be able to pick up the slack - no pilots, no transports.

Each branch has a distinct mission, in which it is dependent on the others for success. No branch stands on it’s own anymore, so I think your argument is a bit off.