Why do we have 5 branches of the military?

[Yavin4]

At most we should have two: Army and Navy. Won't two branches work just as well?

[truebluegreen]

1. 'Cause we need more top brass and bigger budgets than two branches would allow. Naturally!

Same reason we need 19 jillion intelligence agencies...apparently intelligence is hard to find.

[quinnox]

2. well, 3 of them make good sense

Army = ground power

Air Force = air power

Navy = sea power


Marines = hmm. First guys in.

[arely staircase]

16. marines are technically the navy

nt

[Siwsan]

43. My favorite poster: The Marines are looking for a few good men. The Navy has them.

I remember this posted at our barracks, in Iceland. The Marines HATED that poster. I mean seriously HATED that poster.

[frazzled]

34. The Air Force wasn't a separate branch until 1947

after World War II. The Army housed the flight forces until that time: the Army Air Corps (in which my dad served), and Army Air Forces.

[Volaris]

61. Yep. and Air Force was spun off into their own branch,

because while Air Power had proven itself, people were afraid of the Army having control of that air power in the (unlikely) event of a Coup. It's why the Army as a Branch isn't allowed (or didn't used to be allowed, anyway) to fly fixed-wing aircraft. And as I am not completely sure of the facts, someone feel free to educate me as to why the Army flies A-10's (or am I an idiot and that's a Marine ground support aircraft...)

[pinboy3niner]

3. Ask Tevye...

[graham4anything]

4. so each is limited in its power so there are no military coup'd'etats by one rogue head

The founders wanted to insure the military does not accumulate power, and someone like Eisenhower should never have
been President?

that is my guess.

[former9thward]

37. You mean someone like George Washington should never be president?

He was the commander of the military and the founders were just fine with him being president.

[graham4anything]

38. Eisenhower should never have been President. Most everyone I know agrees Adlai should have.

[former9thward]

39. We had no war when Eisenhower was president.

Very few presidents can make that claim.

[mrmpa]

48. Not quite correct.............

The end of the Korean War was 1953, technically Eisenhower was President from January '53 and the war ended in July '53.

During Eisenhower's terms, military advisors were being sent to South Vietnam. Also in '57 and '58 Marines were ready to go to Lebanon under Eisenhower's orders.

[former9thward]

51. No quite correct.

Eisenhower said he would end the war if elected. When elected he went to Korea and ended a worthless war. Sending a few dozen military advisors to Vietnam is not a war. When Eisenhower left office most Americans never heard of Vietnam. And no one went to Lebanon so no war. Marines are always ready to go somewhere, so what.

[bike man]

52. Truman sent money and advisors in 1950

July 26, 1950 - United States military involvement in Vietnam begins as President Harry Truman authorizes $15 million in military aid to the French.

American military advisors will accompany the flow of U.S. tanks, planes, artillery and other supplies to Vietnam. Over the next four years, the U.S. will spend $3 Billion on the French war and by 1954 will provide 80 percent of all war supplies used by the French.

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index-1945.html

[markiv]

64. George Washington said no military general should be president nt

[stevenleser]

5. Coast guard is department of transportation, not DoD. nt

[Yavin4]

8. Why can't the Navy do the Coast Guard's job? n/t

[TransitJohn]

9. Because the Navy's a purely military force

and doesn't need to be doing the work the Coast Guard does.

[DevonRex]

10. Because most of the Coast Guard's role is civilian. nt

[arely staircase]

23. though they did sink a dozen or so u-boats during the big one.

nt

[DevonRex]

28. Yes they did. If our land borders were

ever overrun, Border Patrol (since they're Federal and already there) and National Guard would assist the armed forces in a comparable way as a first line of defense.

Poor guys. Border Patrol, I mean. Can you imagine their surprise? But, would it be Red Dawn 1 or Red Dawn 2?

[stevenleser]

11. That would mean militarization of the Coast Guard's duties, much of which is search and rescue. nt

[sarisataka]

65. The Coast Guard has law enforcement powers

that are prohibited to the navy. Drug searches and seizures at sea are carried out under Coast Guard authority.

[Cirque du So-What]

35. Not for awhile

the CG now reports to the Department of Homeland Security. 9/11 changed EVERYthing, yunno.

[Hangingon]

36. Coast Guard is now in Homeland Security

[pinboy3niner]

41. Yes, but I was surprised to find this...

It operates under the Department of Homeland Security during peacetime, and can be transferred to the Department of the Navy by the President at any time, or by Congress during time of war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Coast_Guard

[Hangingon]

45. Coast Guard went into the Navy during WWII

Lots of people manning landing boats were Coasties

[stevenleser]

57. Yep, I stand corrected. I was remembering from my own active duty days in the USAF. nt

[giftedgirl77]

6. the Air Force is kind of important

I mean they do provide our air cover/security. The Navy doesn't have the capabilities to provide the air support that the Air Force does mainly because all the Navy's missions invlove water & the planes don't go on aircraft carriers.

The coast guard covers the water surrounding our borders, the Navy by law isn't allowed to handle those missions.

As far as the Army & Marines I dunno other than being Army & having a dad who was a Marine, I'm just gonna say no bc they're a bit nuts.

[NutmegYankee]

7. Technically the Marine Corp is part of the navy.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

14. But don't tell a Marine that unless you're looking for a fight (nt)

[arely staircase]

18. true, but they cash those dept. of the navy checks

and join the navy seals

[NutmegYankee]

24. Marine - My Ass Rides in Navy Equipment

[oneshooter]

40. Army- Ain't ready for the Marines yet.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

29. Nonsense. All Marines know that they are under the Dept of the Navy.

[oneshooter]

47. And we do realse that the Navy is a wonderfull transport and supply unit.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

62. If you were in an air wing and miss sea duty, here's some helpful tips borrowed from an old salt:

Sleep on the shelf in your closet. Replace the closet door with a curtain. Six hours after you go to sleep, have your wife whip open the curtain, shine a flashlight in your eyes and mumble "Sorry, wrong rack".

Renovate your bathroom. Build a wall across the middle of your bathtub and move the shower head down to chest level. When you take showers, make sure you shut off the water while soaping.

Don't watch TV except movies in the middle of the night. Also, have your family vote on which movie, then show a different one.

Set your alarm clock to go off at random times during the night. When it goes off, jump out of bed and get dressed as fast as you can, then run out into your yard and break out the garden hose.

Use 18 scoops of coffee per pot and allow it to sit for 5 or 6 hours before drinking.

Have a fluorescent lamp installed on the bottom of your coffee table and lie under it to read books.

Ask your wife when making a cake to prop up one side of the pan while it is cooking. Then ask her to spread icing really thick on one side to level off the top.

Wake up at 0-Dark-30, line up in the driveway in a light drizzle, and then have your mother-in-law criticize your clothes.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

66. I'm sending this to an old friend who was a Navy pilot

He'll enjoy it.

[oneshooter]

70. No sea duty, just a simple Mud Marine E5.

Would have really liked Embassy duty but not tall enough.

[Scuba]

12. The number of major branches isn't the problem. The military is tremendously complex...

... there are thousands of specialties within each branch.

The real problem is the overall size. It's about twenty-five times as big as is needed to counter any actual threats. Keeping it vastly larger is highly profitable.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

15. How about this. We keep all five branches and fire all the contractors (nt)

[Scuba]

17. That'd be a great start!

[msongs]

20. + 25 million...use part of the massive savings to give the recruits a nice raise nt

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

21. Speaking on behalf of every non-com

Thanks!

[One_Life_To_Give]

13. Revenue Service go where?

Going back a bit we had
US Revenue Service
US Lighthouse Service
US Lifesaving Service
US Army
US Navy and the Navy had Sharpshooters for fighting/boarding vessels called Marines.
Since then the US Army Aircor has come and became the US AirForce as there were seen to be differences between the two following WW2.

I don't think you can just put them into two categories. Differing focus and legal requirements. Not to mention that one part is Law Enforcement while another is subject to Posse Commitatus preventing, Law Enforcement.

[Control-Z]

27. Most informative post.

Thanks!

What can you tell me about merchant marines?

[Egalitarian Thug]

19. The Air Force is completely superfluous. It's all about turf wars and graft.

Personally, I think General Butler made the best plan for disposition and restriction of U.S. military forces.

[SoCalDem]

22. Because the military brass always need polishing n/t

[ieoeja]

25. We had those two before the end of WW-II. Now we actually have only one.

The Army was then sub-divided into the Army and the Army Air Corps.

The Navy was sub-divided into the Navy and Marine Corps.


Today, you could say that we have only one: the Department of Defense. DoD is sub-divided into segments called Army, Air Force and Navy. We call them branches. But if you want to call the Department of Defense a "branch" and the others "segments" or some such name ... it would not mean anything.

Army - large scale land warfare including tactical air support of same**
Air Force - strategic air power
Navy - seagoing warfare
Marines - policing the Navy, smaller scale land warfare, guerrilla warfare***


** Army was late to the tactical air support game. They ended up using Naval aviators in the Philippinnes during WW-II. And they had no helicopters in Korea. Alexander Haig and his CO had to borrow a Marine helicopter to abandon their command the day the Chinese attacked at Chosin.

*** Navy/Marines have been fighting, and winning, guerrilla wars for over a hundred years. This is something the "we can't win in Vietnam/etc" types refuse to acknowledge. The simple fact is that the Army was given command of the Vietnam War and ignored the recommendations of the Navy/Marines. The Navy/Marines would probably have won****.

**** Sorry to anyone who thinks the Navy/Marines would have won by "taking off the gloves". The Navy/Marines wanted to do LESS in Vietnam. The simple fact is that communist Vietnamese did *not* fight the Japanese then French by themselves. There were just as many non-communist Vietnamese in that fight as well. Ho Chi Minh did not even have overall command. The North had a head start because Ho murdered all of his communist rivals during the British interim occupation of Vietnam. Diem, one of the non-communist leaders of the fighting against Japan and France, was well on the way to establishing his control of South Vietnam and would have, in time, built up a force to counter Ho's. Even after we assassinated him, there were still plenty of experienced, bloodied South Vietnamese soldiers/officers who could have done the job given enough time. The Navy/Marines wanted to let the South fight the war while the Navy/Marines just supported them. But the US Army said they could win the war themselves. And McNamara wanted to prove to the Soviets that we were willing to fight. So we ended up with a debacle.

[GreenStormCloud]

33. The Marines were founded on Nov, 10 1775.

They have been around longer that the country itself has. The Navy was not sub-divided into Navy - USMC after WWII. It has always been divided.

Marines have always been part of the Navy.

[oneshooter]

42. Screw McNamara!! n/t

[Motown_Johnny]

26. 'cause we don't have a 6th one yet, just give it time

and we will eventually have a space force

[Yavin4]

59. Actually, the 6th one is the CIA n/t

[Inkfreak]

69. If we do get a space force

I wanna be a Jedi

[Recursion]

30. What would be the advantage of reducing the number of branches?

Would that make anything concretely better?

That rhetorical question is a reminder that we have a lot of things because changing an institution will always cause unforseen harm, and in many cases harm that outweighs whatever good might come.

[Yavin4]

60. Streamlined service would mean less money

For example, each branch has it own planes.

[Recursion]

63. would it streamline things?

Would unified services require fewer total planes? Would they meet current requirements as well with a single acquisitions chain?

[jeff47]

68. They have their own planes because they do different jobs

So you'd end up with fewer branches, but the same number of planes. Because those jobs still need doing.

[graham4anything]

67. NO advantage. Big disadvantage-one rogue branch overthrow the President.

the military is not suppose to have that much power and always has to be run UNDER the presidents order

Is this something the BushPaulfamilyinc are planning on doing should they grasp power?
We already know the Paulfamilyinc want to get rid of direct voting for senators and take that away from the people

Are the Bush/Paul's knowing they can never win the election of the Presidency under the 270, looking to use one of their
military buddies to overthrow the constitution(they themselves have never cared if they shredded?)

I wonder if unwittingly, this thread has uncovered this diabolical plan?

[Rex]

31. The army occupies, the marines take beach heads

the navy shells from offshore or sinks them in the lane, the air force bombs them until the landscape is flat and the coast guard catches drug runners and pirates.

Very easy and effective system.

[Egalitarian Thug]

32. For a solution let's ask an expert.

One of, if not the greatest American military hero. Major General Smedley Butler.

How to smash the racket!
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html#c4

[Orsino]

44. What would combining branches of the military get us?

If the answer is less wasteful redundancy, the next question is: why can't we get that with the current five branches?

I really don't see that combining branches is necessarily a good thing, and shouldn't be a goal in itself.



(Besides, we old soldiers like having four other branches to be better than. )

[pinboy3niner]

46. "Besides, we old soldiers like having four other branches to be better than."

Ain't it the truth, lol!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

49. Not to worry. We have oodles of money to spend on our bloated military.

[pinboy3niner]

50. DoD has an obsession with the number '5'?

[darkangel218]

53. That way they can alocate more money and no one says a thing

It seems less when you divide it by 5

[1-Old-Man]

54. I have read that our Navy has the second largest Air Force in the world, ours being first.

I could go with three, an Army, a Navy, and an Airforce. Why we have Marines is beyond me, a guy on the ground with a rifle should be in the Army.

But I understand the need for many branches; it makes it easier to spread the money around.

[oneshooter]

58. Because the Army doesn't like to get its feet wet.

[liberal N proud]

55. So we can buy more from the military industrial complex.

Too bad ships don't fly, the air force could buy those too.

[SheilaT]

56. It is my understanding that the actual mission of each branch is quite different.

Back when the Marine Barracks in Lebanon was bombed (must have been when some Democrat was President . . . wait, it was under Reagan, gosh who'd'a thunk?) someone I knew who'd been either in the army or in the marines explained to me that the Marines had no business whatsoever being stationed like that in Lebanon, because they were trained to go in and out quickly, accomplish the mssion and go home, not be stationed somewhere for months or years on end.

I've never bothered to discuss this with any other service member I've ever known, but it makes sense to me.

And those who've pointed out that the real cost is the contractors have it right. Get rid of them, let the various services do their own cooking, cleaning, and so on. We'd save a fortune.

I'm sure it's silly of me to suggest that we get out of the war business altogether, and while we're at it close down most of the bases we have around the world.