R.I.P. Scout26
Outside of tradition, is there a compelling reason to even have distinct branches of the military? If we were starting from scratch, wouldn't it be more reasonable to have a single military "branch" with sections that specialize in various tasks? Each branch seems to field units that cross over into what are ostensibly the bailiwick of other branches, so it isn't as though only the air force can field aircraft, or only the army can field tanks. Seems the branch structure we use tends to result in redundancy where it isn't useful.
I'm not sure I'm arguing against your idea but I suppose, to a point, having separate services ensures they are looking out for their own interests. If we put an Infantry guy in charge of the combined DoD military he probably is not going to care much about funding and developing new ships. A Surface Warfare guy would probably feel the same way about new tanks or non-carrier aircraft.Though I agree we are a little too spread out right now. Especially service specific camouflage uniforms. Am I right?
