Replies

My view at the outset of this experiment was that the Army could find a very few individuals capable of graduating the Ranger course, and I thought that once they were found, they would graduate even if they had to execute the Weekend at Bernies scenario. That last part was unfair to these two women.

Consider the numbers: With a pent up demand by women, 400 of them showed an interest. 100 or 25% of those interested made it through some screening and entered the Pre-Ranger course. This course is designed to weed out too weak to make it through Ranger School. 20 of them made this screen, 20% of those who attempted. Through several recycles, 2 women graduated, 10% of those who started the Ranger course, and 2% of those who actually began the total training cycle. This suggests to me that the standards were not changed and these 2 women earned their Ranger tabs along side all of the other men who have earned a tab.

At these rates, the Army could expect that between 1 and 5 women per year could graduate from Ranger School, perhaps even less considering that we had a large pool for this first effort. This demonstrates that Ranger School is not for women and that women should not be assigned to ground gaining combat units and Special Operations units. The Army gave it a fair test and the results show that the infantry, ranger, and armor combat unit exclusion is sound policy.

This will not please the Feminazis and the politicians bent on destroying our military, so they will twist these result to justify their goal, something that can only occur by lower the standards, and lowering them by a considerable margin. I expect that graduation numbers will go up, and that other courses will be opened with standards adjusted to accommodate femailes. It will be a mistake.

My last combat tour was sitting in a FOB. I was 49 years old. I could do 80 pushups for my PT test, run 1.5 miles in 9 minutes, and was overall in pretty good shape for a 49 year old guy.

But the truth was that I could do an honest 6 hours of combat-level field work, provided I had a week to recover afterward. I could do fine for a few hours, but the 20 year old guys would keep going for 12 or 18 hours, and then do it the next day, and the next, month after month.

My suspicion is that women will prove to be similar. A few will be able to pass the test. Many will be able to put in a good day’s work. Some a good week’s work. And if they are on a FOB, like I was, it won’t matter. But if they are in real field conditions - something I didn’t do at 49 (in part because no one WANTED me at 49) - they won’t cut it long. And they will be the weakest link. They may be good. But like me at 49, they won’t be close to the best. So why bother?

At 57, I’d volunteer to go fly jets again in a heartbeat. But in my honest moments, I have to admit I can’t handle the strain of flight line operations like I could at 25. The military would be STUPID to seek me out and recruit me instead of a young guy. And it is STUPID to seek out women in the interest of “fairness”. If a motivated old guy is still an old guy, then a woman is still a woman.

As a Japanese fighter pilot a friend of mine knew used to say, “You no have will to cheat, you no have will to win!” There is no place for fairness in combat.