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 ...
Outstanding post. You covered all the bases.
Too bad our military and civilian leaders are too stupid to see as clearly as you.
No partisan wanted to be captured by the Germans either.
Nature has equipped men and women differently. Understanding that, the objective should be to get the best person for a job.
And don't think for a second I am denigrating her service.
This is what I hear when you talk about this subject:
Daddy, Daddy, look at me, look at me. I can dive just like Tommy. Daddy, Daddy, look at me!
It is utterly unnecessary. We have a population of 300+ million, of which there are MORE than enough qualified males to fill the current slots.
Our armed Forces is small, elite and the Army is comprised of less than 1,00,000 personnel. There is no logical reason to have has a significant portion of that relatively small force a group which is not required to meet the same physical standards as the men, which BY LAW cannot be deployed to missions which require them to directly engage, close with, and destroy the enemy or to be plugged in as emergency replacements for those who do, which requires a seperate logistic train to include seperate housing, and whose injuries and death impact civillian and military morale in ways that the deaths of males WILL NOT DO, at least untill the baleful effects of cultural marxism continue to corrode the civillizational impulse that has always attempted to mitigate the horrific effects of war against women and children.
Those of us who have seen the grim horror at the sharp end of infantry combat (as I did in a Mech Infantry outfit in Vietnam) are concerned at the rhetoric of many of those pushing the women in combat agenda. Daily we are regaled by the sight of 110 lb. women routinely beating the stuffing out of 250 lb male behemoths in choreographed entertainment fantasies like Buffy the vampire Slayer, Dark Angel, Tomb Raider and the Matrix Reloaded. We all listened breathlessly to the initial (later revealed as inaccurate) reports of brave little Jessica Lynch mowing down hordes of Iraqis.
It is only natural that with this continual barrage of opinion shaping that an attitude will begin to form that women are just as generally capable of participating in infantry combat as men are, with a comensurate erosion of the rationale for excluding them in the first place.
This is not to say that women can not serve in positions that enhance military capability, they are already serving in them, and serving well and honorably. It was Nazi Armament Minister Albert Speer who cited the German failure to mobilize their women in the manner that the Allies did in WWII as a significant factor in the Nazi defeat. In situations involving large scale mobilization, they are essential. (Don’t forget that the Soviets only did it because of the hugely staggering quantity of casualties that they suffered, on a scale that we can scarcely concieve of) That is not the case now as most personnel requirements could be met with the available pool of qualified males. Today, the issue is clouded by feminists and their societal influence ranging from lefist cum Marxist to liberal gender equity advocates. All too often combat readinesss, morale and unit cohesion is secondary to remaking the military institution into one which advances a radical social agenda. The decision to incorporate such large numbers of women into today’s military is a political decision, not one of military necessity has was the case with the Soviets during World War II.
The question must be asked as to what would happen should we face an enemy that could inflict the sort of casualties on us has was the case during the fighting in northwest Europe in WWII? The United States Army was forced to comb out military personnel who had been assigned to the Army Specialized Training program as technical personnel (aircrew, radar operators, etc) and convert them to infantry to replace the staggering losses. Since 14% of the Army is not deployable to such duty (women) this does not bode well for such an eventuality. While we can continue to pray that we will never again face an enemy that will be able to attrite us as the German and Japanese Armies did, we MUST not plan as though it will never again happen. The current COIN/Anti-Terrorist wars as they are presently playing out ARE NO TEST OF THIS PROPOSITION.
Many commentators are relentless in their determination to ignore the considerable body of factual evidence indicating that the present policy of sexual intergration is inconsistent with certain vital forms of combat readiness. Study after study (reinforced by my 20 yrs of anecdotal observation in the active duty military and NG) highlight the physical unsuitability of most women for the tasks of the combat soldier, and often even the support soldier. My personal observations include the inability to change the tires on military vehicles, clear routine stoppages on M60 medium MG’s and .50 cal HMG’s, carry heavy loads any appreciable distances at necessary speeds, lift and evacuate casualties, and an inordinate disposition to injury. The reason that the military adopted “dual physical training standards” was to ensure politically acceptable numbers of women, since 40-60% of them would be washed out if they were required to meet male physical training requirements.
We won a World War with 16 million people in uniform against the most formidable battlefield enemies that we have ever faced, with half of today’s population and over 400,000 dead, WITHOUT the need to place women into direct combat roles. This reasoning is being impelled by radical feminism and Cultural Marxist elements who care nothing for the combat effenciency of the Armed Forces, but are concerned with fundamentally transforming and undermining one of our most vital institutions.
You might want to read about the German pilots, we did not believe their claims of shooting down literally hundreds of the enemy planes until we saw the proof.
We had no idea that such a thing was possible, aces with 2 and 3 hundred kills.
This is effin nonsense. The average male Ranger is expected to max the APFT (100 points in each category) and they have the annual Best of the Best Ranger Contest where they don’t even start grading the PT portion until AFTER the Ranger has maxed the test.
Nope, I don’t. However, I believe people should be given the chance to prove themselves. If they can’t make the grade, they can’t make the grade. I went through reserve Marine basic. Same thing guys did. I passed. No special privileges. I got yelled at just the same, ate the same mud, repelled off cliffs like them, the whole scene. My dad was a Marine pilot in Vietnam, I have two brothers that served in Iraq One and my mom is a military brat. I’ve been there and done that. I was thirteen and and dropped off in the forest behind my home. We live on five acres that abuts a national forest. All I had were the basics and I spent three days out there on my own. All I ever asked for or wanted was a chance. I’m now an FAA certified pilot. I fly bizjets and now work in Australia as a pilot for the Royal Australian Flying Doctors. I put planes down in the outback that’d scare the living crap out of any Marine pilot. So I am a paid up dues player. Too many guys think that women are too fragile to do anything but make sandwiches and have babies. You try pushing something the size of a watermelen through an orifice of your body then tell me how very unphysical we are.
I am a woman, I totally agree with you, and the only thing that makes me angry is that the military is being dragged down to the lowest common denominator along with every other institution in American life, vital ones like law enforcement, firefighting, academia, pop culture, etc and militant feminism has so much to do with ALL of that.
Back to the Rangers-just for starters, the discrepencies in upper body strength are unbridgeable. The standards affected by that one factor will have to be lowered, just as swimming requirements in law enforcement have had to be lowered or dropped for blacks. Just as the race industry cries about “cultural bias” in iq tests, when results show that minorities actually do better on the parts of these tests which could be said to have “cultural influence”, that being one of the easiest things to learn when they LIVE in this culture. The parts of the tests based on more pure cognition are where the problems come in, but admitting that wouldn’t support the agenda that everyone in general is equal in iq, it’s just that the tests are “rayciss”. Funny how the truth is the exact opposite of what they claim!
Well, one more nail in the coffin for the military (Obama wants to “equalise” the SEALS also, a “minority recruitment drive” is supposed to be in effect, as if the opportunity for anyone who can make the cut based on the standards already in place hasn’t always been there). What do the PC, AA, equality-uber-alles hustlers do, when minorities just don’t want to put themselves through that degree of rigor? Why, they lower the bar so that those who formerly couldn’t have made the cut can get the “prestige” white males have for enduring it, without having to actually BE the best. So long as they get a certificate that SAYS they are just as good, who cares if they didn’t actually have to BE THE BEST?
That wins the award as the stupidest post on the subject, in many ways.
I’m kind of fond of the differences between men and women. I’m wary of people who don’t appreciate those differences.
You're talking to the wrong dude.
City governments waste a fortune in expensive, dedicated efforts to get some unqualified female into their fire departments, the military doesn’t have the time or the need to waste time and energy searching for a possible exception who can squeak through, it doesn’t help us at all, it only hurts us.
There is no reason to search high and low for a way to get a single female mixed into the supply needs and social cohesion of a unit.
No problem. I understand. When a situation comes up I do at least would like to give it a shot. No harm done. Regards, Janey
I take it you don't know anything about Ranger school or Infantry combat.
Since you’re sounding so manly and tough, go have a double chili with plenty of jalapeno’s and contact me in the morning.
LOL bs!
But when men are doing men stuff, ugly or glorious, they don't want women there. That's not where you belong.
I think what you will notice about instances of Soviet women in combat roles is that they seem to have performed better when they were the only link in the chain such as pilots, snipers and members of NKVD blocking units. Yes, the Soviets also had female infantry units but from all I've read about them, they may have been brave and determined but they didn't perform particularly well.
A book you may want to read sometime about a Filipino-American woman guerrilla in WWII is The Crucible: An Autobiography by Colonel Yay, Filipina American Guerrilla .
The radical feminists and left in general will have nothing to do with such a woman who achieved the rank of colonel in the Filipino guerrilla army fighting the Japanese. Two reasons being she had bad things to say about the communists and was decidedly pro-Amerian.
We might be dinosaurs, but we’ve seen enough life to know reality from a reality TV show.
Half of American can’t tell the difference. Fantasy = reality to them.
The punishment for this foolishness will be severe, when the butcher’s bill must be paid, in another Normandy, Iwo Jima, Chosin Resevoir, Hue City, Mogadishu, etc.
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.