Posted on 06/13/2012 3:41:24 PM PDT by kingattax
The United States Army is debating whether to admit women to Ranger School, its elite training program for young combat leaders.
Proponents argue this is to remove a final impediment to the careers of Army women. But the move would erode the unique Ranger ethos and culture—not to mention the program's rigorous physical requirements—harming its core mission of cultivating leaders willing to sacrifice everything for our nation.
The Army's 75th Ranger Regiment traces its roots back to World War II, when it won acclaim for penetrating deep behind Japanese lines. Founded in 1950, Ranger School teaches combat soldiers small-unit tactics and leadership under extreme duress. It pushes men harder than any other program in the Army's curriculum.
Competition to attend the course is fierce, with about 4,000 men eligible to attend each year. Only about half graduate. Of those, only 20% make it through without having to retake various phases.
For decades, completion of Ranger School has been the best indicator for determining which young men can handle the enormous responsibility of combat leadership
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
When I lived in Minneapolis, the St. Paul Fire Dept, was trying to get it's first female, which shocked me because I thought all of that had been long accomplished, but St. Paul had never changed their standards, hence, no females.
They had a super star this time, a true athlete and super woman, she had trainers, was on a special diet and workouts, the Fire Dept was doing everything to get this Great White Hope across the finish line, she was at her peak, at her best age, everything maximized just for her, if they could capture lightning in a bottle at just the right moment, they would get a fire woman who on her best day barely squeaked by the minimum, in other words, all this was to gain probably the naturally weakest fireman in the cities history.
I thought of our men in Vietnam living on cigarettes and canned peaches, clothes rotting off, 30 pounds lighter since basic, all the things that weaken and drain a young athletic man during sustained living in the jungle in combat, yet they could still do it all, including hauling their wounded.
I couldn't help but think of that female applicant, not sure that she could pass the test at her peak, which already defined her as one of the most inadequate of firemen if hired, but what would that woman be after 10 years of beer and chili dogs, a couple of kids, middle aged spread, being more prone to injuries. She had no reserves of natural man strength, the absolute most we could expect from her would be that 10 years later, she would still be barely adequate.
What does going to classes in school have to do with trying to supply special gear, supplies, materials, accommodations, medical personnel and security for a single female in a nasty, brutal, isolated combat post where you can't even get enough food water and ammo to them as it is?
Regardless of the outcome of such match, I admire your attitude. No one likes a defeatist.
I personally think the probability of women qualifying for the Rangers is so low as to not warrant consideration. However, I would not want to preclude women soldiers from trying any more than I would want to prevent girls from trying out for their high school football team. I suspect the percentages will be similar.
In order to not burden the Rangers or Spec Op's, I would require that in order to show up as a Ranger/Spec Op candidate, a certificate of minimum qualifications must accompany each candidate. If a woman soldier can meet the minimum requirements, she deserves a fair chance.
Wow, how big of you to group women in with transgenders, gays and lesbians. What a prig you are!
Sorry, I don't agree with mandatory deployment of women in combat and especially with women serving in subs and other close situations, but find the comments on this thread regarding the "abilities and capabilities" of women insulting to all women. The most vitriolic posters are in high probability NOT combat material or borderline successful in their own military career. Those I have personally known in my life who have served, including WWII, Korea and Vietnam, would never post such crap.
; )
If the SHTF... and able men are not in abundance to defend the homeland, they would all thank their lucky stars that we have brave, able and trained young women to step up and take to the fight.
The “dumbing down” of training standards, and a weakening of the Ranger ethos, coupled with stripping the branch of the service of all physical standards and, in consequence, effectiveness, would follow as night follows day, and yet another priceless institution would fall to the PC demons.
This is, quite plainly and simply, madness.
Whatever chair polishing Pentagon general came up with this idea should be broken in rank and sent to shovel sh*t in Nome, Alaska.
Alas, things being what they are, he’ll probaly get a promotion.
LOL, is that girl logic? 313 million Americans and heading for a Billion, and suddenly America has to worry about running out of men?
In WWII our population was 132 million.
In the bloodiest war that the United States has ever fought, the Civil War, we had a population of 31 million.
I did have to chuckle at this one. We had two Platoon Leaders, both tabbed, get fired during my combat tour in Iraq--one of them was for cowardice.
My point is that the tab doesn’t make the man; it never has.
While this sounds fine, there are a number of reasons why it won’t wash:
A) first off say .1% of women qualify, great. Is it worth accommodating the units to cater to separate gender facilities for .1% of the membership? Do you think they will be able to run unisex? I don’t.
B) There is no way the standards will hold. When 99.9% of women applicants wash out there will be a hue and cry about how the qualifying program is discriminatory and standards will drop. This has proved to be the case elsewhere (as mentioned above, firefighters and police).
C) Fraternization is bad. While the O seems hell bent on bringing back the Greek band of brothers, not enough people swing that way for it to be significant. It sure as hell is when men and women are there and in close proximity.
It’s not whether she can kick my butt.
It’s whether she can kick the butt of a man who is trying to kill her at all costs (his own death included).
two points... 1)that is way queers open or in the closet serving in the military are a bad idea for the same reason i stated, and 2)do NOT confuse female Israeli soldiers serving inside their own country with with forces in maneuver warfare operating outside their own borders in completely hostile territory for months/years in the most primitive of conditions...
Amen! Absolutely. A friend of mine is a ranger a tough guy. It took him three tries to become a ranger made it on the third try.
If you ever see the navy seals BUDS training, no way in hell that ANY woman could endure that. You know the end is near when women are Navy seals.
During my four years, we usually sent 4 to Ranger School, and the pass rate was 75%. The training these men went through prior to attending Ranger School was extensive. It sounds passe, but they were the elite of the elite.
As I was completing Airborne School at Fort Benning many years ago, I met up with a few alums who were stationed at Benning, all wearing the tab. They tried their best to convince me to go, but I knew my limitations. First, I wasn't a runner: I could LRP all day long, but my best time in just the 2-mile was around 14 minutes. Rangers routinely run 5-6 miles in 30 minutes.
I never saw myself being able to function for weeks on end on less than two hours of sleep per day. The closest I came to that was on Tac Evals, as the Army Liasion Officer from my unit. I was basically up four days straight, but the surroundings were plush compared to getting hypothermia in a swamp.
There may be one in 10,000 women who could handle the physical requirements of Ranger School.
There may be one in 100,000 women who could handle the physical and mental requirements of Ranger School.
And there may be one in 1,000,000 women who could handle the physical and mental requirements of Ranger School, and possess expert knowledge of small unit infantry tactics, map reading/orienteering, etc.
If what I say is true, is it worth it for the sake of perhaps 200 women?
PS - During my 8 years on active duty, I can't recall serving with any women capable of passing Ranger School.
Excellent post, Frank.
**************************
But will you ever eat watermelon again? That's an image I won't soon forget, try as I may.
LOL!
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.