Posted on 05/08/2015 6:07:02 PM PDT by centurion316
None of the remaining eight female candidates going through the Army Ranger School made it out of the first phase of training at Fort Benning, Ga., defense officials told Fox News -- though they scored high enough to try again as early as next week.
The candidates were the first women to train for the elite force as part of a program that began in February.
While they did not do well enough to move on to the next phase of training, an Army Ranger statement said the eight women -- along with 101 men in the same situation -- will be "recycled," meaning they can re-do the training phase in an upcoming Ranger School session.
A total of 60 women were originally slated to participate in Ranger Assessment Phase (RAP), according to the Pentagon in January. The Army Times reported in February that 100 women went into the pre-training phase, and in April, 19 women qualified for the first training phase, known as Darby. Within days, that number was down to eight.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
All of Army training has been changed to accommodate women. However, a little historical correction concerning the length of Airborne training. Airborne hasn't been six weeks since WWII and that course included parachute packing. In the early fifties, Airborne was 5 weeks to include training with gliders. Gliders disappeared in the mid fifties and Airborne was reduced to three weeks at that point, nothing to do with women. Certainly, phyisical standards were adjusted as you said.
Uh-huh.
Like Coumo and Kennedy, perhaps?
Not always. If so, those people would NOT have been in office.
touché Well, for the most part. My friends are Ultra conservative. Not some. All.
They didn’t come from staten island.
Any white person who is liberal is insane.
Seems like there’s confusion between those who embrace a conservative middle-class lifestyle and those who are political conservative. It’s hard to find a politically prominent American from an Italian background who would be considered an FR-type conservative.
Steve Scalise is the only one I can think of just now.
Unless they are stupid.
If they “embrace a conservative middle-class lifestyle”, they really need to wake up and see how this is being utterly destroyed by democrats.
I’m not saying they need to go out and vote Republican in mass, but they should never, EVER vote democrat.
Not much to do with being Italian or Irish and a lot to do with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, who have supported socialism for 100 years.
Thank you for you service Sir.
I stand corrected.
People miss the point on this.
The Elite military training programs are intentionally designed to weed out all but the toughest and most capable men because that’s what it takes to do the job in actual.
By dropping standards, you are doing the exact opposite.
In some of the foreign Special Forces they have a truck called something “The quitter cart” filled with Special Forces trainers following the trainees who are in the process of being put through hell and pushed to the limits of human endurance and deprivation in the most extreme environmental conditions imaginable.
The trainers drive up and down the line sitting in comfortable chairs set up in the back of the truck with feet up, shoes off and drinking beer and eating great food and smoking cigarettes while begging the trainees to to quit and join them on the truck so they can weed the mentally weak, the quitters and less than fully motivated and committed out of the program.
Of course they also use the same to truck to transport trains who collapse from exhaustion or who are injured during the hard training to the base hospital. This a very coming occurrence in training.
These qualification standards are insane and have almost nothing to do with battlefield conditions, even behind the lines ops. They are mainly bonding initiation rituals and torture endurance if captured training. Elite forces are no harder to kill when spotted than any other fighting force. I want to see figures on Seals, Rangers, Delta Force and Green Beret actions that show them to be worth the expense in training. If you want mountain troops, train them in mountains. If you want desert troops, snow troops, UDT troops, air insertion troops, etc., train them for the job. You try to train one person in all the above, you get a very expensive asset just as capable of being lit up by an IR drone as any other normally trained asset.
After their active duty service is up and they civilianize, guess who drops by with a pay check- all the private security details for the fat cats and bankers who start these conflicts. We are basically training bodyguards and mercenaries for the globalist monopolist aristocracy, the people we fought a revolution and founded this country against.
As trainees they should know better than take the bait.
They wanted to be here so it is at that moment they commit.
If they give up then they do so willingly.
The standards are NOT insane. They provide the nation with a level of security based on strong minds and endurance.
There would have been NO USA with your level of understanding.
Are your observations and ideas based on your own experience, or just some logical analysis? I certainly agree from my own combat experience as a reconnaissance platoon leader and a rifle commander that it’s very unlikely to encounter conditions that are encountered at Ranger School.
But the purpose of Ranger School is to train leaders for the stress that present in actual combat conditions without actually shooting at students. The overwhelming opinion of combat veterans leaders is that Ranger School is the best training available for that purpose. Ranger School graduates serves throughout the Army combat branches, not just in Special Forces and the Ranger Regiment, so your argument does even not apply to this particular course.
>>But the purpose of Ranger School is to train leaders for the stress that present in actual combat conditions.
By that logic, all field officers should be Ranger qualified. Behind enemy lines ops, with a higher than normal possibility of capture, plus being on secret tactical missions, should require training in resisting torture, certainly.
Battle fields are not what they used to be. Most future face to face battles will be in an urban environment. Viet Nam era insertions to organize and train insurgencies are a vanishing necessity. An Entebbe scenario is possible, but hostage rescue in an urban environment is extreme high risk. Ask them Russian school kids in Beslan. Hell, the Bin Laden operation lost a chopper right off. Too damned many chance and lack of intel variables. Sabotage of hard targets can be done with drones for the near future. The far future (5 years +) and it will be drone vs. drone warfare.
As far as leadership training goes, I want my commanding officers trained in urban terrorist interdiction AND have an IQ of 140 +. That means a field grade commander speaking the host language, knowing its culture from an in depth academic perspective, being able to carry out a diplomatic mission as well as a military tactical mission. You don’t get subtlety of thought and action by hammering the crap out of soldiers to prove they are tough.
You want men capable of remaining on station in severe conditions, sure, but anymore, those conditions are very temporary and they are back behind the Halliburton revetments having a beer and Bic Mac, emailing their family and posting the day’s operation on YouTube when cleared to do so. This “Iron Man” mentality is a meme whose time has come to fade into obsolescence. You need smart soldiers capable of immediate tactical perception on rooftops and in alleys. I’ll take a platoon of soldiers hard trained 50% on video games and other simulators, including psychological simulators, over a platoon of elite specialists.
And again, I make the point that retired special ops soldiers end up as mercs and bodyguards and assassins and drug runners for the elitist bastards who represent everything America does not. Preppers should fear them, cuz that’s who Halliburton and Wackenhut and Blackwater will be sending your way any day now.
Your point assumes that Ranger School is the only training that leaders receive. Thanks for your comment.
If only there was some way to prove that. Wait. There is. My ex’s softball team was the best in the area and she was one of their top players. Would often watch her games. After their game a men’s team played and we watched their game. The comparison was like watching a movie at regular speed ( the ladies ) then hitting fast forward ( the mens ). I can’t think of one woman who could have kept pace with them.
Decades ago my ex once got on a women’s lib kick and asked me why women couldn’t play men’s golf. I said they can but I had a good example I just found then. The paper had a tourney’s results for both men and women on the same course ( different days ). Discounting the ladies tees, merging the scores only had the best woman player in the top 20 and most of the lower half was all women. Getting rid of women’s golf and making them play men’s would mean most times they would never even be near the good money.
So now there possibly 8 slots that would normally have gone to those who had the best chance of passing the recycle training given up to PC.
No worries...... we all want the best combat readiness for all our Soldiers. I don’t mind women attending the course so much as I do not want the standards to be lowered for anyone... even those who have failed the course would not want the standards lowered. In the end, combat effectiveness of those units which are on the pointy end of the spear need to have that “brotherhood” which makes effective in their mission to close with and destroy the enemy. Introducing women (or open and active homosexuals) into those units disrupts the brotherhood and makes the units less effective. This is not to detract from those courageous women who have shown bravery under fire and have made great sacrifices. Rather, it is an observation of our American warrior culture and the team building it requires. V/R Bill
The insanity continues. It will take the US military, if Hillary Clinton is not elected president, a good 25 years to rebuild after the dismantling by Brenda Obama. Women need to be very far away from any combat role. That is why God made men, to protect women and children. End of story. Men die protecting women, been that way since the beginning of time. They are called the weaker sex for a reason.
When you see a woman make an NFL team as a linebacker they are ready for the US Special Forces. The reason is simple. No NFL training is as tough as special forces training. No women in the NFL no women in the special forces. Pretty simple.
I heard this a while back:
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.