Posted on 05/16/2012 9:12:40 PM PDT by Publius804
WASHINGTON — Army leaders have begun to study the prospect of sending female soldiers to the service's prestigious Ranger school — another step in the effort to broaden opportunities for women in the military.
Gen. Raymond Odierno, Army chief of staff, said Wednesday that he's asked senior commanders to provide him with recommendations and a plan this summer. And while he stressed that no decisions have been made, he suggested that Ranger school may be a logical next step for women as they move into more jobs closer to the combat lines.
"If we determine that we're going to allow women to go in the infantry and be successful, they are probably at some time going to have to go through Ranger school," Odierno told reporters. "If we decide to do this, we want the women to be successful."
According to Odierno, about 90 percent of senior Army infantry officers have gone to the school and are qualified as Rangers. Allowing women to go to Ranger school, he said, would allow them to be competitive with their male counterparts as they move through the ranks.
Going to Ranger school, however, does not automatically mean women would be allowed to serve in one of the Army's three elite Ranger battalions, which are Army special operations forces. In fact, many male soldiers who wear the coveted Ranger tab on their uniforms never actually serve in one of the three battalions.
Currently, women are not allowed to serve in special operations, infantry or armor forces, which are considered the most dangerous combat jobs. They are, however, allowed to serve in a number of support jobs such as medics, military police and intelligence officers that are sometimes attached to combat brigades.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
RLTW.
What pathetic DISGRACE.
There's another thing at work here that may have missed. The champions of opening up the Rangers to women have coached this in terms of providing jobs. Ah, hello Army brass — the Rangers aren't a jobs program. The Rangers are the tip of the spear; they are combat infantry recon teams. They are given risky combat jobs and there is no place for anyone who cannot do what the job demands. Waivers don't get it done when the bullets and rockets are flying.
The other dirty secret that no one speaks is this: exactly WHO are those championing Ranger School for women? I'll guarantee you that zero enlisted women want to go to Ranger School, but there are a certain number of women officers who want this. Why? Because the Ranger tab is seen as a fast track to promotion in the PC and feminized Army. The problem with this reasoning is the Ranger tab guarantees very dangerous assignments. Nothing interferes with a general officer's career like premature death on a risky mission in combat.
Odierno has got to know the right answer here. He must be humoring those OBot Obama appointees above him.
There isn't one. The purpose of girl-Rangers, girl-SEALS, girl-mariners, and girl-aviators isn't the protection of the country. There's nothing any of them does—and this also applies to female cops or Guardsmen—that couldn't be done better and with less compromise to their unit by lots of males who would be glad to take the job. Coed protective services exist so some women can feel they have a life. They don't think they do, because they have no respect for . . . women. This applies to some—but certainly not all—females in the service. It applies mostly to civilian females—especially politicians—who are burned up over the idea that men can do things that women can't. It doesn't appease them that women can do things that men can't. Their self-loathing doesn't allow for that.
But delusion makes bad policy. Breaking things and killing people on an industrial scale is a male thing, and that's that. As far as I know, both the Israelis and the Russians gave up the girls-in-combat thing long ago, because it was a disaster.
Just ask her fan club. I'll bet they vote for her. /sarc
It’s a test of leadership and endurance more than anything else. Not much hand to hand combat.
I would disagree with this statement. Women in combat roles in Israel is, and always has been, a result of leftist political ideology except perhaps for the briefest of periods. After 1948 women were removed from any combat roles based on studies done of the effectiveness of inclusion in war. In 2000, the Equality amendment to the Military Service law stated that the right of women to serve in any role in the IDF is equal to the right of men. There was no pressing logistical need to do so.
Any society that sent its women into combat would have historically died-out.
Because it takes nine months for a woman to bear a child, with half of such children growing to be warriors.
While it only takes one man to impregnate an entire tribe of women.
Therefore any tribe that lacked the genetic, inborn distaste of sending its women into battle, would have died out in a very few generations at most because of the declining birthrate brought about by having fewer mothers.
Meanwhile, those tribes that had genes that influenced a dislike of sending women to war, would have continued to exist.
It drives me crazy to see people trying to rationalize their inborn, genetic, dislike of sending women into combat—you cannot rationalize not sending them. But you can simply understand that it is against human nature and so against the happiness and strength of a society.
Meanwhile I say men should not joint the armed forces in protest.
Let the armed forces be peopled only by women and foolish men who swallow the Kool-Aid about women’s equality.
Yes, I know...
There's a famous quote that goes something like this.
"Men letting their wives and daughters fight their nation's wars will soon have neither. "
The way things are going, we are not too far away from ‘there’——the commie Pres is doing his best to destroy this country and this is just another one of the ‘destroyers’-—the top ‘brass asses’ are the worst of all as they should know better but don’t give a sh-t just to keep their fat pensions——
I heartily agree-—I enlisted and served 5 yrs in WW2 and would not ever enlist today with what is happening to our military——there are many good men in it but this allowing women ((potential mothers) to serve in combat is a stupid, disaster for our nations future as it is softening the killer instinct that is needed in the miltary warrior—I spit on all brass who choose to be political garbage and would allow this nation to be doomed if a real war breaks out (not that some of the fat assed men around would be worth anything in a time of trouble)
Pure insanity. Is the military a social program or the protector of our nation? <<
and there u have it!...The answer before the right question!
Any woman that believes that she has what it takes to be a REAL Ranger or Seal needs to be knocked on their ass ... and it wouldn’t take a real Ranger or Seal to do it
Penis envy.
The ONLY thing that would do is generate a “dumbing down” of the Rangers for the sake of political correctness.
Our armed forces are being ruined for the sake of politicians’ social experiments.
In short, it’s pure BS.
Just because a woman can run, swim and cycle under her own weight in no way means she’s a candidate for Ranger School. The biggest physical requirement is the ability to hump a monstrous ruck. Mine weighted over 70lbs and I only weighed 130lbs at the time.
And, OF COURSE they’ll fudge the standards and tests. That’s what the Army always does with women in combat roles or inter-sex training.
You ain’t far from the truth, brother.
TV and Hollyweird has already indoctrinatd too many Americans who’ve never served and have never had to carry a woman’s load.
10,000 women will test today, all will be GIVEN the Green Beret....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.