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 ...
Chgogal, I think it is unfair to place this burden on the heads of officers within the military in charge of various programs facing this type of issue. I don’t think they should be put in that position. It shouldn’t come to that.
In a perfect world, with a military containing no “Perfumed Princes” and a civilian leadership that is not inclined to meddle in the details of running things, that would be the responsibility of the military leadership to ensure that standards are met.
But whether you want to admit it or not, neither of these situations above is the case.
The military takes their direction from the civilian leadership. Their only options (other than simply saluting and obeying) are to sabotage the wishes of the civilian leadership, or to resign. And those are the only choices: Obey, Obstruct, or Out (Leave). (Liberals might read these “Three O’s” and grin with the knowledge that it is EXACTLY what they want. Because they know that obstruction will not prevent them from reaching their objective. Nobody can obstruct forever, and obstruction can be just as damaging to the military as to the individual doing the obstructing. Liberals would call that “a twofer”...)
(Note: the same options of Obey, Obstruct or Out are being presented for opponents of homosexuals in the military as well. I want to emphasize that I do not in any way view these situations as having anything in common except for the two things: The method being used to implement the “desired” changes, and the impact on the military’s ability to perform a mission in the end. That is all. While I view the homosexual lobby and the feminist lobby in the same way because I do believe they have the same goals with respect to the military, I do not view the situation with women and homosexuals in the military at all in the same way. (Note that I will more closely group women in the military with homosexuals in the military who have no interest in pushing a homosexual agenda over the goals of the military) Again to reiterate: I don’t view women in the military in this respect, because I do believe the majority of them are patriotic and hardworking with the end goal of an effective military.
Anyway, all three of those options accomplish the goals of those who do not have the best interests of a cohesive and capable military at heart.
You may have read “Once an Eagle” by Anton Myrer. We have a good number of Sam Damons in our military, still. Principled leaders who want to do what is right for the country, the mission, and the men.
But for every Sam Damon, there are many who will do the right thing until it impacts their career, and there are always many more Courtney Massengales who will embrace what is needed to advance their career, regardless of the country, the mission, or the men. The reason this is so is because of human nature. The founders recognized this when devising a Constitution, to protect the people from men like Massengale and his ilk.
However, there is no such limiting mechanism inside the military other than the precepts of honor and tradition. The firewall is the government itself. Once that is breached, there is no saving recourse. One can attempt to argue along the lines of orders must be followed unless they are immoral or clearly wrong, but these pressures and edicts issuing forth from the civilian leadership do not fall into those categories, at least according to the civilian leadership. (Personally, I do think it is immoral and wrong (not because of women entering the Rangers, per se, but because of the loss of life and failures of the missions I see in the future)
So our commanders have no choice but to obey, sabotage the process or resign. The people in the “civilian leadership” have no intention of changing their views, barring a massive shift in values and electoral engagement.
The electorate can be broken into multiple parts: Those who think we should have a military, and those who don’t. Of those who do think we should have a military, they can be divided into those who know almost nothing about it, those who view it as a jobs program and those who understand what the military is all about. And even those who understand what the military is all about can be further broken down into those who want to achieve the goals of a successful military but think women in the military are being shortchanged from a career advancement point and want to change that by making the military gender-neutral, and those who want to achieve the goals of a successful military by focusing resources to maximize their application regardless of whether it alienates people because they understand that many of the rules in the military were written in blood, and to disregard those rules is to devalue the blood shed.
There are enough people in the electorate who view the military variously as a jobs program, an equal opportunity program, an unwanted necessity and an abomination that diverts money from social programs, that the groundswell to resist this is not going to come from the electorate.
And those in the government who make decisions? That speaks for itself. The Democrat party long ago stopped being responsible in this role, and there are too many in the Republican party who are indifferent to this. And we all know what the media wants. They want what the Democrats want.
Bottom line: This is a done deal.
Great post, thanks for taking the time.
I admit, I am pessimistic about this. I guess realistic might be a better term. But as I stated in my initial post:
In 5 years after women join the Rangers/SEALS/Delta, you will hear talking heads in and out of the military who will say things like:
NEWS ANCHOR/POLITICIAN/MILITARY COMMANDER: "When we integrated women and homosexuals into these units, people were saying it was going to be a disaster, that it would hurt mission capability, morale and such. We are more capable now than we have ever been, and have the moral buttress of diversity and equality. Remember how they said the same thing about the military when blacks were going to be integrated back in 1946? Same result here...the world didn't end, and it won't. It was the right thing to do, and we can all be proud of the diversity we now see."
The republic died almost four years ago.
I’ve already posted enough personal information.
Superb post.
End of thread.
Nothing left to say.
By the way, Travis, I bought all three of your EnemiesForeignAndDomestic e-books.
Good job.
Like the ending. Well done.
So, did you really go to USMC boot camp, or not? Which one, Parris Island, or San Diego?
Thanks. I wish I believed in real-world happy endings like the end of Foreign Enemies And Traitors.
The MSM can spin it that way, as long as we don’t get pulled into a war not of our choosing, not on our terrain, without air superiority.
As long as it’s mainly a remote-control UAV war, we’ll do fine.
But if it’s a modern version of Korea 1950, we’ll get slaughtered, and no MSM lies to the contrary will be able to hide the facts on the ground.
After viewing your FR bio page and description of the character, I’m thinking you might have based Brad on. . . .you.
Sounds like “None of the above”.
Nah. I got married early, and I’m still that way. “Now, all my thrills are vicarious.”
Any society that sends its women to fight for it before it sends its non-shaving boys and cane-borne old men deserves to be overrun.
Even though I’m in the 12th. Marine Corps recruiting district I was sent to Parris Island where all female recruits train.
That wasn’t so hard now, was it.
There’s far less personal information in “Parris Island” than in your FR page.
It’s because of what I’m doing now is why.
Because, the facilities at Ranger school are set up for men. Women have rquirements that are different than men. Ranger school training schedule would have to be altered to meet women's health needs, since it is intended to be a miserable experience testing not only the physical capability but also the will and mental capabilities of its participants. Unless women have changed, these are considerations that must be taken into account. Would it be 'fair' to fail a women for something that is attributable to their nature as women? I've not been to Ranger school, but I have friends who have, it is a demanding school completed in a state of poor hygiene.
Check your attitude. Read your posts.
“It pains me that in many cases, one cannot discuss this without being painted as a troglodyte at best, or a misogynist at worst.”
Trust me...you are neither.
You’ve displayed good, common sense.
I’m worried about the military, if any of these posts from women are to be believed.
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.