Stephen Kilcullen: Women Don’t Belong in Ranger School
The Wall Street Journal publishes today the opinion of Stephen Kilcullen, an ROTC grad and Ranger School grad in a piece titled Women Don’t Belong in Ranger School. He picks up from a quote by General Ray Odierno who claims that the Army owes women a shot at Ranger School; “If we determine that we’re going to allow women to go into infantry and be successful, they’re probably at some time going to have to go to Ranger School.”
Odierno would be right if that’s all Ranger School is – a punch hole in a ticket to command. Kilcullen says;
It is this culture of excellence and selflessness that attracts young men to the Ranger brotherhood. The Ranger ethos is designed to be deadly serious yet self-deprecating, focused entirely on teamwork and mission accomplishment. Rangers put the mission first, their unit and fellow soldiers next, and themselves last. The selfishness so rampant elsewhere in our society has never existed in the Ranger brotherhood.
And that is the secret of the brotherhood’s success. Some call it “unit cohesiveness” but what they are really describing is a transition from self-interest to selfless service. The notion of allowing women into Ranger School because denying them the experience would harm their careers makes Ranger graduates cringe. Such politically correct thinking is the ultimate expression of the “me” culture, and it jeopardizes core Ranger ideals.
But, that doesn’t matter to Big Army, it doesn’t matter to those people who are going to make the decisions who think that special operations is some exclusive club they can’t join. Big Army leaders like Eric Shinseki who took Rangers’ berets from them and gave them to everyone, because when Shinseki was a tanker who had his tanker black beret taken from him in 1979 and he couldn’t wait to take it back from the Rangers.
If I thought for a second that allowing women in Ranger School wouldn’t change the school and the valuable lessons they teach young combat arms leaders, I’d say go ahead. But I know Big Army better than that. I watched simple things like allowing pregnant soldiers to remain in the service turn into a huge leadership problem. I saw the cadet corps of The Citadel blamed for the failure of fat ass Shannon Faulkner when she dropped out in days after two years of legal battles to get her in the course. Wiki says of her;
After four hours of the military indoctrination training, she spent the remainder of the first week in the infirmary before voluntarily resigning, citing emotional and psychological abuse and physical exhaustion.
Yes, after four hours, she was exhausted. Actually, she expected to be hand carried through four years of college and spent not one minute preparing for the rigors of cadet life. And yet the cadets at the Citadel were blamed for her failure.
Similarly, the media would expect women to graduate from Ranger School and blame the instructors and students on their failures (there’s a thing called “peer evaluations” at Ranger School last time I checked), so Big Army, in it’s infinite wisdom would change the standards, and they’d probably do away with peer evals – one of the most important parts of the school, so assholes don’t get to be Rangers until they change their ways.
The whole point of Ranger School is to simulate combat stress as closely as possible, it’s mentally and physically demanding and there’s no room for relaxed standards, unless we’re willing to only fight enemies who’ll agree to relax their own standards in regards to fighting women.
This isn’t a post against women in general, it’s post against Big Army who I know will screw this up.
Crossposted at Business Insider.
Category: Big Army, Military issues
Oh jeez, here we go…
It never ends.
If you’ll notice, the gist of the argument isn’t that women in ranger school will help the Army, but that it will help women and their careers. Later on they will formulate a contrived argument for why the military will benefit as well, but only so they can have a quick comeback to logical objections.
Make the military a more combat effective force is never the goal.
Women “deserve a shot”? Hey, isn’t it un-American to deny them their opportunity?
The day women start being held to the same rules and standards as their male counterparts, we’ll talk. Not that all differences between the sexes could be satisfied if we started to treat them the same, but it would be a start.
And as we all know, all but the fittest one one hundreth of one percent of women will fail out of ranger school so it will be made easier for them.
I’m glad to see that someone has the moral courage to point out that women – and please, don’t argue the miniscule exceptions, the “I know women who can ruckmarch any man into the ground, etc. – simply are not cut out for Ranger School, Ranger assignments, or prolonged front-line combat roles. It’s about promotions, not combat effectiveness. If that’s what Ray Odierno wants, well then, I suppose that tells us exactly what sort of leader he really is and what his priorities are.
Crap. Ben beat me to it. And said it better.
I think some people believe that it’s the military’s job to make everyone’s dream come true.
But Susie’s wanted to be a fighter pilot since she was six years old! Mary wants to be a ranger when she grows up!
And the military is supposed to make it happen for them. That’s the point of the military.
I agree with your overall point, that “women” DESERVE to do something because of what it does for them is ridiculous. it’s reflective of the rest of society… climbing the ladder, bla bla bla
“The day women start being held to the same rules and standards as their male counterparts, we’ll talk. Not that all differences between the sexes could be satisfied if we started to treat them the same, but it would be a start.” — Ben No arguments from me. I doubt Shannon Faulkner had any idea what The Citadel has in store for anyone entering that school. I also doubt that she could have made it through one day of WAVES boot camp. Culture shock can be like a real punch in the nose. It was to me, but I survived it, left Bainbridge for Photo “A” School at NATTU NAS Pensacola and went to work at NAVPHOTOCEN (now Naval Media Center – pfft!) in WDC. 4 hours? Hell, I put up with a bunch of crabby premenopausal bitches in boot camp. They hated us as much as we hated them. I didn’t regret it then, and I don’t regret it now. Never will. So, the dreadful Demi Moore “G.I. Jane” movie aside, if we girls want to be in those positions, then we girls should know that we will be facing the same standards as men. My niece went through nursing school via the Army ROTC program. She was sent to Walter Reed after graduation, then to specialized surgical training at Ft. Sam Hood in Texas, and then she told me she was being sent to Iraq. I told her, based on what nurses who’d been in Vietnam had told me, that she might have to shoot someone. She never flinched, just said, “I know.” I do not think it is one bit fair to expect men to bear the entire burden of combat in defending this country, but if we girls are to be in those positions (and there’s a current lawsuit under way to do that), then we’d better expect to get the same crap that men get, and screw the career crap. And that means you don’t cry when you break a nail or take your six-month-old baby to a park bench and pull up your blouse… Read more »
Ben nailled it. The Army in its ethos and in theory (I stress theory.) is allegedly a meritocracy. We believe in results both physical and mental, but simply cannot have one without the other. Why should this be any less true of Rangers?
I wish I could say offering females the opportunity of attending Ranger training is an opportunity to see how they’ll perform and should they qualify without a sacrifice in the standard, then so be it. But that’s not going to happen and this is being done for all the wrong (i.e. politically correct) reasons.
“If we determine that we’re going to allow women to go into infantry and be successful, they’re probably at some time going to have to go to Ranger School.”
Odierno’s lips may have been moving, but the words were coming from Obama, or the President, or, more likely, “Call me Senator” Boxer.
For those of us who served in the Army, and had their orders repeatedly given to ringknockers who, after all, ‘have a future in the Army,’ Ranger School is just another exclusive club that needs tearing down. And I’m 100% for women tearing down that club.
Odierno doesn’t have jump wings, and no tab either. And he’s a freaking anomaly. We certainly could use more anomalies like him and McMaster.
To clarify: orders (plural) for Ranger school.
If we’re going to open it up to 17-21 yo women, then we should also open it up to 55 year old men. The PT standards are basically the same for both groups.
When I was a young enlisted Soldier, I put in many times for the “hooah” schools. Many times, my requests were turned down, not because I was unfit, not because I was bad Soldier, not because the “approving authority” wanted to prevent my promotion. Those requests were turned down because the unit did not need me to have shiny s*** on my uniform. They needed me to do MY job, in their unit.
Eventually, I got some of that shiny s***, when I was in a unit that needed me to have that capability. I still maxed out promotion points, without it. I still got promoted.
“Promotiability” is insufficient grounds to send someone to a school the Army doesn’t need them to have. Instead, they should be working on getting to schools that will make them better AT THEIR JOB.
Maybe. But not in positions of authority.
Maybe. But for those like Obama and Odierno… not in positions of authority.
it will take a edecade to undo their damage, and many will bleed because of it.
Maybe this suggestion is already out there, or has been made and shot down for some obvious reason that I’m missing… Why not just reward 0 promotion points for hooah school graduation? If a big part of the issue is women’s career advancement, don’t make the training they’re not suited for a path to promotion. Of all the guys I knew who wanted to go to Ranger school, I can’t think of a single one who was interested because it would help with promotion. Everybody who wanted it was a badass and wanted to learn to be more of a badass. Of course, I was enlisted and I won’t pretend to know what’s going through officers’ minds.
@Ex-PH2
“I do not think it is one bit fair to expect men to bear the entire burden of combat in defending this country…”
I served between wars and my opinion may have changed if I’d been called on to go somewhere and get shot at, but I never considered it a burden. It’s an honor to wear the uniform, and with an all volunteer military now, any man who thinks it’s a burden should just not enlist.
I won’t pretend I know much about Ranger School, because I spent my 20 years in the AF as an Airframe Mechanic, Low Observable guy, however when I was stationed at Hurlburt Field I was able to meet a few Rangers going through training there. What I saw them go through I can not even imagine the strongest women in the world being able to make it, these guys were so wiped out and carried such heavy loads that I could have sworn they were seeing elfs by the way they were talking and acting.
let me make it clear that I have never been to ranger school but I would give my left (and possibly my right one too) if I could go not only through the school but the Regiment as well.
Having said that, WOMEN DO NOT BELONG ON THE LINE. It causes too many damn problems, and if we are really honest with ourselves the support units with high female population have suffered because of it.
Ranger School was never a ticket to punch or something to wear lightly, it is (quite literally) a badge of honor. Further, this school tries to suck as much as possible, to make hard men, and warriors, because combat will be just as hard and just as cruel. The first time an RI pulls back because he’s “asking too much” of a female, the entire system that is Ranger School will have become null and void. If you want to reconstitute a lighter “recondo” style of school fine. But Ranger School has to remain untouched.
fucking sweet. Come on Ray, let the broads in. And as soon as the standards drop, my old tired broken down ass can finally get a tab!!!
Why hasn’t the military come up with a female ranger unit, were instead of the just ” badass ” attitude is required but total sharp-shooting skills are honed. If the men won’t accept the women in their unit, make one that appreciates the women, and gives the women a reason to be proud of their highly appreciated learned skills. Just wondering, I mean long ago, the military didn’t have special ops, didn’t have other branches, they were made for specific jobs.
When I first met my wife, she used to give me a lot of baloney about how our relationship should be completely equal, fifty-fifty.
It wasn’t until I pointed out to her that she likes gender roles just fine when they benefit her that she realized she didn’t really want a “fifty-fifty” relationship.
If we’re driving on the highway and get a flat, who’s going to change it? You or me? Me, of course. Because I’m the man and it’s men’s work.
What she wanted was to divide traditionally female tasks between us–fifty-fifty, of course–while still leaving traditionally male tasks to me. This is “equality.”
And that’s how I see women in the military. They are blissfully unaware of the many, many ways in which they are treated differently. They only seem to be aware that some jobs are not open to them. Any woman who tells you that she really, really wants to be allowed into the infantry and treated just like the guys is full of shit. They want to be allowed into the infantry and then change things.
Michelle, all I’m going to say is look up the physical fitness requirements needed in order to just apply for Ranger or scout sniper school and you’ll understand why that isn’t a practical solution. If you don’t then try to actually meet those requirements.
In principal I do think women should be offered a shot at Ranger school provided they meet the MALE standard. There would be few who could. Realistically speaking I do not want to dictate the standards of a community I am not a member of, and I agree with Jonn that this is almost guaranteed to get screwed up badly. These things have a nasty habit of becoming political, and once that happens then it’s the beginning of the end for any meaning the title/patch/whatever is supposed to have.
I also foresee an implementation based on numbers instead of quality. This was the one big drawback of the FET teams (I don’t have any knowledge of how this worked with the Lioness Teams.) I think the idea is an excellent one, and in certain cultures it can make for a valuable NON-combat asset. Unfortunately I think the need led to some ill suited personnel being sent forward. There wasn’t any significant screening process, and there wasn’t a great of training or preparedness. So with manpower already an issue the teams got mostly nonessential support unit personnel who volunteered in country and got sent out with grunt units.
I don’t think it’s possible to adequately prepare most noncombat personnel for that sort of mission in that timeframe. So naturally the verdict from my combat arms friends was mixed. Apparently they’ve overhauled the process by selecting and preparing the volunteers months before they deploy so I can’t say anything about the current quality.
Ben, I respect that you and your wife want to divvy up household duties how you see fit. But how exactly are normal day to day activities gendered?
If my tire needs to be changed I don’t call AAA, my friends, or flag down a motorist. It’s my own damn tire so I get the jack out and change it myself. When it’s practical to do so I use the same principal with changing my oil (if anything it’s easier for me to do it since I’m better suited to maneuvering under the car), household repairs, and chasing off anyone stupid enough to break into my house. I don’t do any of this out of some girl power mindset, I was just raised to be self-reliant and will continue to be that way.
Sure, there are women who expect men to do certain things for them; however, there are also plenty who allow men to do things like change a tire because they feel it’s incumbent upon them to do so which makes things awkward if you don’t let them. So please avoid the silly men’s work/women’s work talk. The issue is much more nuanced.
OK guys, I’m not trying to start a fight so if what I say comes out wrong it’s me not articulating myself. This is a mess created by the Army itself. In the Marine Corps there is ONE level of Marine, that’s being a Marine. We have our “specialty” types, I.e. Recon, Scout/Snipers, etc. but those secondary MOSes have very little if any bearing on a Marine’s career path. Why all the different levels of soldiers? I mean regular GI’s, airborne GI’s, Ranger GI’s, Green Beanie GI’s, Delta GI’s, etc.
Maybe it’s the Marine’s credo that, “Every Marine is a rifleman first”. There is no school or training or unit that will up your chances for promotion. I take that back, officers should do a tour in the infantry to get ahead. As for the average Jarhead? Do your job and do it very well and you’re on your way. I was a Sgt. in two years. I had Career Counseling telling me I’d be a SSgt. in six. SgtMaj Meza, our Bn. SgtMaj., said I could be a ‘Gunny’ in 10. Why? Because I was a ‘hard charger’ and was ‘AJ Squared Away’, no special schools or special units. What stopped me? My wife said she was going
home after the end of my first tour!
As for the female part of the question? They meet the exact same standards as the men or no Ranger school. If they wanna be Rangers, they meet the standards of the school. Anything less diminishes the name “Ranger”.
@17- “…I would give my left (and possibly my right one too) if I could go not only through the school but the Regiment as well.”
WTF? They’ve been hiring soldiers for years!
A female Ranger unit? As in Rangerettes? We’re gonna need a longer tab.
The Army treats Ranger School like it IS a career school- how many Infantry officers get promoted far who’ve NOT been to that school? If its not ‘career-mandatory’ why is it part of the advance-course curriculum for Infantry?
Granted, if you are not an Infantry branch, Ranger school is something different. Signal, Armor, Aviation, etc don’t REQUIRE it by any means- any more than they REQUIRE jump school. The units one is assigned to may require it (think you’ll go many places with 82d or 173d without wings?) but in Infantry, you must have Ranger if you want to retain the branch past Captain.
This means that up and until females are permitted to branch Infantry it is in no way ‘required’ for promotion. So their argument falls apart.
BTW, bring back branch insignia to the uniform. It SUCKS not having it. Outside SF, Pilots, it’s hard to tell who’s what (and unit patches ain’t much help)
Stolen from a fellow pissed off soldier- you can guess his background and guess the type:
“This whole idea probably makes perfect sense to a leg-@$$ CSA and leg-@$$ SMA sitting around the Starbucks giving each other ‘Yes, sir…three bags full!’ handjobs and sucking down their macchiato whatevers in that five-sided concrete squirrel cage on the Potomac.”
And so it goes…
Richard
__________________
A Special Forces soldier does what little boys dream of and what men wish they could do. . . An old Special Forces soldier remembers what it was like with every ache and pain in his body and would do it all again for love of country, but most importantly for the bond of brotherhood on an A-Team…
“A lot of folks want to wear the beret, but only a few want to carry the rucksack.” COL AJ ‘Bo’ Baker
“Zog nit kyen mol…” – The Partisan’s Song
JPJ has responded to every thread about this type of argument. I have only responded to a couple of them, because others have made the argument when I didn’t. As lowglow stated; the physical demands are insane. Anyone that has watched the “Best Ranger” competition would see a portion of what is required, but those men have already been through the school. As with women as infantry, it isn’t about whether they can pull a trigger at the bad guys, they can and have; it’s the humping on a day to day basis and the other physical requirements. Men are physiologically predisposed to a larger upper body to be able to handle the heavier loads while women have a lower center of gravity and have to work harder to gain the upper body strength to be able to match a man. It’s not to say that some can’t, but if the standards are the same for both genders, based on the current standard, derived from decades of what is needed to accomplish the mission, then it doesn’t favor the female and changing the standard to accommodate females will change mission effectiveness. I’m not saying that because I’m a knuckledragging male chauvinist (well, I am a knuckledragger anyway), but rather looking at it from a reality standpoint. Can some women kick my old ass in PT? Of course, but PT scores alone don’t make a person, male or female, qualified for infantry or Ranger school and, personally, I’m sick of hearing the argument about stellar PT scores as the benchmark as to whether that makes a woman qualified for it.
there’s too much spilling of ink over this. let women try. if they fail, they fail. if some get a tab, good for them. the rest is just noise.
for those who never actually serve in a ranger or light infantry unit, it’s just a school, hence why many tabbers are just “ranger qualified” and not “rangers.” having the tab says nothing other than you got through ranger school. you still have to prove you are an effective leader both in garrison and in combat. there’s plenty of tabbed out assholes and careerist hacks who are toxic leaders or can’t adjust fire when fired upon. so those who think it’s not a check the box requirement to further one’s Army career are being supremely naive. why else would Army let any branch other than infantry go?
whether or not women should be in infantry/armor/SF units in foxholes and hidesites in dangerous and dusty corners of the world alongside male joes is a whole different debate.
BTW…shannon faulker was far too weak for the task she took on. but i’ll bet there have been men just as weak who graduated because they didn’t have to face the unrelenting hostility of the entire cadet population and alums doing everything in their power to ensure she washed out. which is why the pioneer has to be far stronger than “average” because they are facing far tougher standards and hostility than everyone else. this was true of every black student who was the first to desegregate a southern school and remains true today for anyone who seeks to break a gender or racial/ethnic barrier. while i’m certain that nobody from the initial group of females will pass ranger school, at some point some female will. and then maybe there truly will be “equal standards” after that.
“Infantry, you must have Ranger if you want to retain the branch past Captain”
Not so.
Yeah DA (#29), people should quit pointing out the logical arguments against a flawed idea. That way it can be implemented without discussion. Guess you’ll tell Odieno to stop yapping about it too, and Obama, huh? Since we’re paying for their ink?
Rangers Lead the way…the MEN. Period.
The second R says: “Readily will I display the intestinal fortitude required to fight on the Ranger objective and complete the mission, though I be the lone survivor.”
I carried that orange Ranger creed card in my wallet for years after a Ranger friend gave it to me. I never forgot it and when I want to quit at anything, this is what I say to myself. It’s good enough for me. No to chicks. No. no. and NO.
fair discussion on a fair question is not the problem. it’s everyone losing their sh*t over even letting women try, which seems like people are trying to snuff out the argument before it even gets raised. even if a woman gets a tab under exactly the same standards as men (highly unlikely), she still has to go out there and lead Soldiers. and no tab will mask the kind of deep-rooted character flaws that produce toxic leaders. but a woman (just like a man) is much more likely to be taken seriously in any discussion about tactical issues if they have a tab. but if they do have a tab, would we still refuse to listen just because she’s a woman? all the kneejerk resistance to even entertaining the idea of women getting a shot seems far from logical.
True equality is having the opportunity to succeed AND the opportunity to fail. Let ’em try, and if they fail like a man, kick ’em out like a man. No special standards, no exceptions, no “modifying” standards to allow for their whateverness – I don’t have a problem with them trying but it needs to be a level playing field, not the ‘bend over backwards-change the standards-make exceptions for everything” system the military has in place. If they don’t have the exact same opportunity to fail as I or any other male did – forget it.
JP, that’s as brilliant as that moronic campaign that sent makeup kits to deployed women as care packages. If I recall correctly Nancy Pelosi was involved, though it wasn’t her idea. We had some real girly girls in our unit, but the reaction was 100%, “WTF, how about some boot socks and magazines that aren’t 5 year old copies of US Weekly?”
Please don’t shoot the messenger, but it has already started:
Quote:
The Rangerette Creed
Recognizing that I volunteered as a Rangerette, fully knowing that I was ruining a time honored profession, I will always endeavor to lower the standards, discipline, and combat effectiveness of the Rangers.
Acknowledging the fact that a Rangerette is a weaker soldier who shivers at the sight of battle, I accept the fact that as a Rangerette my country knows I will move slower, do less, and cry louder than any other soldier.
Never shall I live up to my comrades. I will always keep myself well groomed, heavily perfumed and all around pretty, you know the important things in war, and I will shoulder less than my share of the task whatever it may be, let someone else do the hard stuff.
Gallantly will I show the world that I am a specially protected and equality based-trained soldier. My courtesy to those who help my cause, politeness with which I am treated and what happens to those who stand for the old Ranger standards shall set the example for others to follow in making this a sunshiny happy Army.
Energetically will I run from the enemies of my country. I shall not fight them on the field of battle for that is very dangerous and I might get hurt or killed. Surrender is not a Ranger word, but I’ll give in if things get rough. I will always leave fallen comrades to fall into the hands of the enemy because they are too heavy to carry and under no circumstances will I ever live up to what my country used to expect of Rangers.
Readily will I display the intestinal fortitude required to watch others fight on to the Ranger objective and complete the mission fighting down to the lone survivor, while I watch from a safe secure position.
@20 Ben. You are right. when have you ever seen a ‘Men’s night’ at the bar where guys drink free? Or, although I change oil myself, at the quickie lube places “$5 off oil change for ladies’.
As far as the standards go, eliminate the gender scores like they did the situps a while back. Make the standards to everyone equal and then we can talk.
@37… make the standards equal is a waste of time. We are not equal. Period. When I start seeing collegiate women football players and gender neutral Olympics with equal competition then I’ll bite. It is obvious many have never been tabbed out and are clueless. Being real.
If this country wants to make any progress, it should start by integrating things that don’t matter. Like sports. They should have a quota for women in professional sports. I’m not talking bullshit soft skills like the two female kickers that college football has had in its history, I’m talking female offensive linemen in the NFL or female defensepeople in the NHL.
They shouldn’t screw with the defense of our country.
Sigh…that’s just horseshit, that pseudo creed. It shows the machismo attitude of idiots and not what is true about most female soldiers.
I would not run from an enemy, elite-trained or not. And I can live up to my comrades grooming, uniform,sans perfume and Tactical equipment care. I didn’t do perfume or nail polish in uniform.
I did uphold the honor and esprit d’corps of the Army. I may not move faster, further but I would fight as hard as any man for my Country.
I am physically strong, morally straight, and can shoulder alot…I can fight with all I’ve got, and I would not leave a fallen comrade even if that means I die.
What I cannot do is complete Ranger School as it stands and I know it. That’s the way it is.
For what it’s worth: I don’t have a problem with women giving Ranger School a try (or SFQC, for that matter). That is, I have no problem provided they (1) qualify for entry under the standards that exist today, just like any male applicant, (2) make the “cut” to get in, and (3) are evaluated to exactly the same standards as any other trainee while there.
However, I have a huge problem with changing the standards for either entry or training in order to ensure success of female Ranger or SFQC trainees. And I’m afraid exactly that will happen.
I agree with Hondo here. For me its never about women in the military or even women in combat MOSes. Its about relaxing the standards to make that happen.
The PSYOP community just lost one of the best instructors and all around brilliant man I’ve ever seen or had the pleasure of working with because his run time was 12 seconds slow. That’s fine, its on him, bad knees, bad back, and all and the most important thing about standards is having them and keeping them. And lets face it, you’ve got a year to shave to 12 seconds off your run time and you don’t do it, brilliance will only carry you so far.
And yet we are promoting a female with a slower run time to MSG, even though she’s horrible at PSYOP.
Oh Jesus Christ I thought the Rangerette Creed was a parody. How exactly are they going to end up with equal opportunities and equal treatment if they make up an entirely new creed for themselves?
You know, this has been something that has keyed my interest for some time, but indulging in this experiment should be better left for after withdrawl from Afghanistan.
Referencing the IDF as a “it can be done” used to be wrong, as women weren’t intentionally put into combat units or situations after 1948 on, in spite of the myths. But in 2000, they stood up an infantry battalion that’s 70% women, the Caracal Battalion. It served in the 2006 Lebanon War, and things worked out pretty well.
Being of the Hebrew people, this is near and dear to my heart. The training these women go through is by all accounts not “lesser than”, and they are not just some dog and pony show. I’m proud of them if for no other reason being killed by a woman must really piss usually chauvanistic Arabs off.
I was 11B with 101st, the 501st PIR in Alaska, briefly with a Guard LRSD unit, and finished out my time from 1994 to last year with a Guard Stryker brigade. I’m not convinced it’s not viable to do here, especially for combat units in low intensity warfare.
But for the same misgivings you’ve indicated, we definitely aren’t up to what the Israelis have done. When they did it, they did it right. They stood up a new unit rather than integrating existing units. If there is a lower standard for women, it’s thusly insulated. Our pols aren’t shielded by coalition parliamentary governments, so they need combat unit gender integration to work too badly to avoid yielding to political expediency.
I spend way more time around the Ranger School than most civilians, and heard recently that a very recent Ranger School class had a high percentage of Trenchfoot and foot immersion disease, because of prolonged rains which denied the Studs the drying time usually found between swamp and river here at the Florida Phase of Ranger School. While women may have feet as tough as men, how many of the women would be wailing and moaning with their problems?
What in hell caused the military to shut down their women’s branches anyway? The WACs were an essential part of the Army when I was in.
FO, why would women be wailing and moaning with their problems? Where’s the basis for this being a women’s issue? I challenge you to find military personnel who haven’t had their very own smokepit Bitching Olympics.
I don’t think a whole separate women’s branch is as cost effective as simply integrating the support services.
FO: two words – politics and need.
As I recall, the big push began with the end of the Vietnam-era draft. End of the draft during a time when the military in general (and the Army in particular) was relatively unpopular in many areas of the country meant that the Army was hurting for new troops – hence the need. In particular, support branches needed qualified troops and were having a helluva time getting qualified personnel. Expanded utilization of women in support roles was a way to meet this shortage.
This was also a peak time for the civil rights/women’s rights movements. Politics came into play, and the argument for “full integration” of women into the military (vice a separate WAC/WAVE/WAF “branch”) began to find champions with political clout.
The confluence of these two factors led to the end of the WACs in the late 1970s.
For further background, see chapters 10 and 11 at
http://www.history.army.mil/books/wac/
If one is not going directly to a Ranger Battalion, there is no need for going to Ranger School.
Big Army bills Ranger School as the service’s premier leadership school. The main reason why only men can hack Ranger School dates back to 1966, when the school’s commandant changed it from a gentleman’s course added on to Jump School, to an exercise in extended gut checks.
If Ranger School is in fact a training ground for Leaders – then ALL leaders should attend. If Ranger School is purely an exercise in Testorone Displacement, close it entirely – in a resource constrained environment, these 38 year old retirees desparately need the retirement money.
I can count the number of leg, untabbed Infantry officers who were not branch-detailed on the thumbs of both hands. They went Guard.
A self-correction and apology- Ranger school was discussed as being an addition/option to the advance-school curricula for Infantry; never made it out of that thought stage. It is, now, a ‘unofficial’ discriminator. Where I work, all of the active-duty Infantry field grades I work with have it.
I’ll shut up now..
AndyN, by “burden” I meant “responsibility”. Perhaps “burden” was the wrong word to use.