The first two female Ranger School grads
The news is out that the first women will graduate from the arduous Army Ranger School alongside their 94 male classmates;
The women have not been identified by the Army, but both are officers in their 20s and graduates of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., Army officials said. The female graduates started Ranger School on April 20 alongside 380 men and 17 other female soldiers in the first class to ever include women. The female soldiers were allowed into Ranger School as part of the Army’s ongoing assessment of how to better integrate women.
I offer my congratulations. Having worked with women in the Army as a TAC NCO at ROTC Advanced Camp, I knew that there are women out there tough enough and driven to successfully complete anything that the Army can throw at them. So, this illustrates well that the standards are attainable for women, the standards aren’t skewed against women, so the Army doesn’t need to change the standard.
However, the Army needs to ask itself if this experiment was worth the time and money, if it’s worth putting up 19 candidates to get two graduates. The Washington Post seems upset that those two graduates can’t serve in the Ranger Battalions, but I’m not sure that they would want to live that life everyday for the next several years. The Army spent a year gathering up twenty candidates and preparing them for this nine weeks of training, I can only imagine how difficult it would be to attract women to the Ranger lifestyle.
I’m sure there are a few, but is it really worth the time and money to just check a box on a slide at the Pentagon?
Category: Army News
I don’t have the words to express my opinion on this right now. So I will wait for API to express the state of the union.
I can relate. It’s that feeling I have when I walk out of a movie theater and someone asks me what I thought of the film… to which I reply:
I don’t know, I haven’t asked anybody yet.
No doubt we can all sleep safer in our beds this evening.
It doesn’t matter if it’s worth the time and money to check the box on a slide at the Pentagon, they’re going to go ahead and do it anyway. Because camouflage ceiling/patriarchy/whatever. It’s all about building a legacy for a certain someone….
And he won’t be around when it all goes to shit
They earned my respect. Rangers lead the way! Hoo-ah!!
I don’t mind the cost or time it has taken for the women to graduate Ranger school. I say more power to them. Part of the fabric of America and what should be epitomized in the military is the notion all people, regardless of age, race, gender, etc can strive to obtain the same honors.
However, no one should expect the Ranger culture or standards to change to accept these women. They must prove themselves capable, not just in training, but in the greater Army. The Special Operations community is a tight knit, proud community and those striving to become part of the family must accept it for how it is, and not expect it to accept them for how they are (if that makes sense).
I will standby my assertion that if no where else in today’s society, the military should remain the one institution where equality of opportunity remains. This doesn’t mean equality of outcome like some believe, but everyone should have the same chance to try.
Well, I do mind the additional time and cost.
Time and money are both resources. Time spent in extra preparation for a “Potempkin school attendance” is time spent not doing what the Army needs done. And the additional money spent is money needed elsewhere – like, maybe, for maintenance of equipment, spare parts, or pay for additional troops.
Congrats to the ladies that passed. But the extra cost associated with their success is IMO prohibitive.
In case anyone hasn’t noticed, both Uncle Sam and DoD are pretty much flat freaking broke these days. We simply can’t afford resource-wasting crap that does little more than make people “feel good” any more.
Of course the U.S. Military is broke, we’re expendable and money is being funneled by politicians and bureaucrats to things they see as more important, things such as luxurious vacations for the POTUS, their own perks and luxuries as well as handouts galore to illegal aliens and welfare flunkies.
I can appreciate that point of view, but I will continue to disagree. The goal of freedom and by extension the U.S. is not only to protect freedom, but promote it.
There may never be a recoverable amount from these women graduating as Rangers in the sense of actual monetary gain. However, I’m not ready, nor will I ever be ready to place a cost on the effort to fulfill the immortal words, “all men are created equal”. These women strove to show they are equal to their male counterparts, and in many ways perhaps superior to those who cannot complete the course (such as the posers often seen here).
The money spent was in “Order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty”, for that there is no cost.
If all are equal then the Armmmmyyy needs to spend the extra dollars on everyone; not just a select 20.
Spending extra resources, time and money, is not equal and it does form a more perfect union.
That being said congrats to all of the new Rangers; they all did what most could not.
Your misplaced platitudes notwithstanding, the mission of the US Army is not to promote equality. Rather, the Army’s mission is to fight and win the nation’s wars. Anything that detracts from the Army’s ability to perform that mission is suspect; anything that adds to the Army’s ability to succeed should be considered.
Spending a rather large amount of additional resources (in terms of special pre-screening, several months additional pre-training, etc . . . .) on a small group to ensure that small group “has a chance to succeed” is anything but equal treatment. “Stacking the deck to achieve a desired and politically-expedient result” is a more apt description.
This “test” was hardly an unbiased trial. Rather, it was a deliberate and unnecessary expenditure of additional resources to achieve a politically-desirable outcome if at all possible. Indeed, such a trial is inherently unequal; the participants here are being compared to peers that did not receive the same degree of enhanced preparation.
I have no doubt that this result will be trumpeted as “proof” that “women can do the job in the combat arms”. I also have no doubt that it proves nothing as a sort for women as a group. Rather, it merely shows that – given a major effort and enough resources – one can find a few women capable of surviving Ranger school. That is all.
That much was obvious to anyone with half a brain before the program was first authorized. In any population, there is always a tiny minority of individuals who are physically able to do amazing things if given unlimited time and resources to train for the task. Here, a concerted effort appears to have been made to find such a small minority, and to pre-train them.
Repeat this same test with a group of female volunteers who report from their units a few weeks after receiving their school orders and we’ll have a fair basis for comparison. I’m not holding my breath waiting for that, though.
No, but the United States as a governmental entity does need to promote equality – how to balance that need with the needs of the military can be complicated.
That said, my perspective on this is two-fold – one, the cost is negligible… at least with respect to the waste in other parts of the military. How much, dollar-wise, does it cost to send someone to RS? Now how does that compare to the cost overruns of the F-35? The reason the military budget is stretched thin is not because we’ve sent a few women to RS.
Further, if we’re talking about reducing ‘unnecessary’ costs, how much do we spend on things like entertainment for the troops? Ribbons and medals? Stuff like that? Oh, wait, that all helps morale? Well, that’s my second point – so does this. Women in the military, at least in my experience of talking with some -it’d be interesting to see a survey about this- are pretty damn happy about this, and feel it’s about damn time. Barriers that exist simply because you’re a woman, regardless of how capable you are, sucks. A friend of mine knows one of the women who passed – she’s a tiny, incredibly fit woman, and has worked her ass off, not just for RS, but to be the best soldier she can be. I’m willing to bet she doesn’t think this was a useless expenditure.
Now, sure, you can argue the morale issue cuts both ways because some men will take issue with this and feel this undercuts the military’s mission and capabilities, but I’m guessing that’ll fade over time. On the other hand, the fact that our military doesn’t lower standards but does allow equal opportunity for the men and women who serve is something everyone can be proud of.
In short, this is a positive for the indirect effects of making the military more representative of our culture, and treating the women who serve more like equals, and the costs are, I imagine, negligible. If I were cutting costs, there’s a thousand things I’d put before this.
See my comment giving numbers below. In terms of additional cost due to lost duty time, the cost per Ranger qualified female appears to have been on the order of $500k greater than that for a male who passed the course.
And that’s based on 20 female candidates. Factor in the fact that 120 started the pre-training process, and that number may well be an underestimate by a factor of 2 to 5.
Questioning the cost-benefit ratio here is legitimate. If those additional costs remain constant, there’s a problem here. If one wants, say, 200 female Ranger graduates annually, that means it needs to find at least 2,000 annual volunteers – plus spend $100M extra to find and train them. I hardly think that’s a negligible cost.
Sadly, considering that cost-benefit question is something I just don’t see the Army doing. It should – because no matter how desirable, that might not be the most effective use of Army resources.
“…the United States as a governmental entity does need to promote equality…”
Show me in the Constitution where the government is required to “promote equality”. The government may be required to respect equal protection under the law and “promote the general welfare”, but nowhere is the government required to do anything so nebulous as “promote equality”.
You do realize that if the time and money expent on these women would have been expended in male infantry Soldiers they would all have graduated, right?
Return for the investment would have been FAAARRRRR greater.
This is nothing more than another social experiment with MY Army. Yes, we know there are a few women at the top of their performance scale that can perform like an average male.
Got it.
Exactamundo.
Congratulations to these two Soldiers. The Army has to take a hard look at the fact that the best it could do with all the hand picking and prep was a 10% graduation rate.
I’m just getting into this topic, so I apologize if this has been hashed out already.
The word I read is that these women were given 6 months of time off from their primary job assignments (I don’t know what they call those for Army officers) to do nothing but prepare for the Ranger course. Six months! So, there’s 6 months of O-2 pay for at least two officers just so they can work on getting fit enough to pass a course that male grunts are asked to pass right off of the front lines. Further, these women are USMA graduates. The taxpayers have already born the cost of their college education and training as officers. We should be getting more out of them than 6 months of living in a Crossfit gym so that they can “prove” there are women who can pass the test to be Rangers.
And, finally, I understand that they were giving several tries to finish certain phases where the male candidates were required to be one and done?
I have no problem with giving women the opportunity to try Ranger school, but, dammit, make them do it the same way that the males do.
Cost/Benefit Analysis.
This one don’t pass the smell test.
OC
On one hand I say congrats, good work!
But like somethings they spent so much time on the ‘can we’ and not enough time on the ‘should we’.
Yes I’ll admit I’m old fashioned, but evolution has also hard wired me to be very protective of the females of our species.
I agree.
Congratulations to those that graduated. Way to go.
But this proves another point. You can accomplish anything when you have the ENTIRE resources of the Army behind you to include time.
I wonder if observational orders will become the norm?
Congratulations for what? One of the women received a go on patrols for motivation, all were recycled to their 5th class, (anyone ever heard of a man getting 5 recycles?) Even the RIs aren’t allowed to see their score sheets, and the president decided to announce his trip to graduation before they started the final phase. This was a politically dictated move, and these women will always have that cloud over their tabs.
They achieved the standard, per the book.
But they HAD ALOT OF HELP AND SECOND CHANCES that their counterparts would never receive.
Clear enough?
Actually, Smitty, I am going to amend my comment until I receive clarification.
Word has it they both failed both patrols in both mountains and Florida.
Word also has it that they were given third patrols and that General Scott Miller came down to be their walker/RI on these patrols, which they both subsequently passed.
Any one know if there is truth to this statement?
I share Jonn opinion in general. I congratulate them. Not surprized that they were USMA grads, a great institution pushing out great leaders!
I too served with some very capable women and many not so much and if I had not retired I might have served with … ah … Nevermind!
If two could make it through without whining about their manicures and their hair, I’m sure there are a few more like them who will be able to do the same thing at the same levels, with no change in the standards.
I don’t know where you’re getting ‘additional time and cost’. If they were part of the class, they were part of the class. End of story. They did something most women would shy away from doing.
Okay, you no-nuts haters can line up now. Personally, I think they could beat your asses flat.
I suspect there was some additional time and cost just because there are typically segregated sleeping quarters, latrines etc. to be arranged, just as when any unit integrates sexes. Still remember when my wife showed up at a 1AD assignment and caught ’em flat-footed – they thought from her name she was a guy. Talk about scrambling…
There was some mention of the women doing a separate pre-training cycle of something like 6 months PT and toughening (which is not done for male applicants, I believe) – has anyone ever verified that? If so, that would certainly be a special consideration.
Regardless, helluva job making it through the course!
EX-PH,
Its a matter of School Slots as well. Ranger School has a limited number of Student slots.
Being former Marine I don’t know the exact hoops a command or a soldier needs to jump through in order to get to that school, but I’m betting it’s substantial.
Historically the drop out rate at Ranger School has been between 40-50% when it was all male.
The Drop out rate for this hand picked group of females was 90%.
In essense the Army lost 8 Rangers from this class.
The OVERALL graduation rate for this class was not quite 25% (96/400).
2010-2014 average grad rate was 42%.
Perhaps instead of lowering the standards as some surmise, the standards for this class were a little bit tighter.
Always be wary of the Army and statistics.
But, in large part I think you are correct that the rate was lower. My guess is that grading received much greater scrutiny and was much more uniform across the board. Which may have meant that some patrol leaders got a No Go in situations were an RI might have let something slide an given them a Go before.
IMHO, that actually isn’t a bad thing as reducing RI roulette is a good goal.
Unfortunately you are comparing a four year (lots of classes) percentage statistic with a one specific class specific.
Even if this specific class graduate rate is the lowest for 2015 it still lacks being a valid compassion to an average obtained from four years of classes.
No, lost 40 Rangers. This was the 5th class these women were in. That is 5 classes that this group took slots out of for political experimental purposes. No man has ever been given that many recycles, so the standard has already been abandoned
Ex-PH2: extra cost? Yes. Substantial additional cost.
1. Special selection and screening effort. Male students typically volunteer, then are selected from unit OMLs or by DA. Unknown precisely, but setting up and operating this screening process probably required at least several staff-months plus substantial TDY costs. My guess would be one or morestaff-years total.
2. 6 mo train-up time as primary duty vice on their own time. I seem to remember reading this somewhere. Don’t believe that’s the norm for most male ranger students.
3. Observation time for the prospective students “auditing” portions of the course prior to actually starting the course. Again, 20 trainees x some amount of time each.
Assuming that’s the case, add all that up and I’m guessing you have probably somewhere around 20 staff-years spent on this effort that otherwise would have been spent performing Army duties (these folks have MOSs and could have been in a unit performing duties otherwise) – and that does not include attendance at the school itself. At even $50k average annual pay and benefits cost per individual, you’re talking $1M in loaded payroll costs alone. And that’s before we add in any additional costs for injuries, facilities upgrades, etc . . . .
Again: kudos to the ladies that made it. But one has to ask if the benefit to the Army is worth the cost involved in today’s financial environment.
“Again: kudos to the ladies that made it. But one has to ask if the benefit to the Army is worth the cost involved in today’s financial environment.”
Exactly… and I would add to that;
Was the effort it took to get 2 woman out of the number who began this process a win for woman? Or did it further show that females overall cannot meet the same standards as their male counterparts required for a Combat Arms soldier?
A School is a School, and they were given every opportunity and then some to graduate… there will be a shadow over their Graduation with the high level of command influence (or appearance of it at least).
If the Army is to further this and allow females into the Infantry because two woman passed a school, they are only thinking politically and not with the best interest of the military at heart.
At least the USMC is sticking to its guns and saying, “we did our experiment, it was a failure and we are keeping things as is.” Too many politically correct GO’s in the Pentagon in the Army side for that to happen.
Congrats to them. Here’s a good article on the subject: http://rhinoden.rangerup.com/time-to-welcome-a-new-era-of-rangers-army/
Great article … well put … clearly by someone who knows!
I was *JUST* going to post that.
Seeing as it’s coming from a Ranger and West Point Male Grad, I’d defer to his opinion.
After reading the article (which is very good) I defer to those that know.
And as I wrote before congrats to all of the new Rangers; they did what most cannot.
Bullshit article by an officer justifying big army decision to go ahead with this social experiment.
Writting well is what officers do.
My apologies, sj – I didn’t see you posted this as well until I scrolled up. Agreed, awesome article.
The extra time and money spent is the overhead necessary to operate in a democracy.
Yes, but in my 23 years in the Air Force I never thought that the military was a democracy.
I must have missed the elections for sergeant, platoon leader, company, battalion, brigade and division commander.
It worries me that now that these exceptions to the norm have done something great the groundswell will be to change the Infantry into a coed institution. This is a false choice. Equality requires an equal playing field and that is simply not the case between genders. To excel at Infantry-ing one must go much further than the standard and quite frankly that standard alone breaks some dudes the F* off. It’s a hard job that I am positive SOME women can excel at, I’ve seen them. The heart, tenacity, physical acumen of those women at the far end of the bell curve is simply amazing. The issue is that for the average female to Soldier that hard it is going to cause problems that are cyclical: broke body, broke morale, broke spirit and dropping out. You may say, “you heartless misogynist”, fine, if using logic dictates a predisposition against failure, you got me! There is and should always be a certain amount of hazing and bullying in the Infantry. Those that get to far out of spec need to be toughened up. Sometimes this happens out of love, and if the lack of performance is due to THS (tiny heart syndrome), it’s out of spite because weakness can just get you killed, true story. So, there’s the issue. When a female fails to perform and excel is it going to be the institution’s fault or the Soldier’s fault? When the hazing starts is the IG going to recommend a company commander be relieved because he is concerned with getting his troops back safely? I have no doubt that a woman has what it takes in mind and will to do the job, not a one. But waxing over the physical differences that lead to mental differences and continued performance is just asking for failure. But my opinion really don’t matter much. The GOV is going to head down this road, break some equipment (read: Soldiers) in the process and either I or the Army will eat crow. I’ll make sure to have ketchup on hand JIC.
Not arguing with you, Roh-Dog, but these women have most likely already put up with extensive hazing, just to weed them out. They’re still here. The other stuff – well, that’s a wait-and-see thing, in my lowly opinion. You should remember that we aren’t just decorations and doorstops.
I acknowledge that. The tag line all along is that they are not going to change standards and I’m sure if you talk to these Ladies RIs (Ranger Instructors) there was no slack given. With this small sample it’s going to be damn near impossible to metric women being durable enough for Infantry service.
Side note: I’m at work so if I don’t respond… These logs ain’t going to cut themselves.
Acknowledged. Stories won’t write themselves, nor will cookies bake themselves.
Actually, from what some of my RI buddies have said, they were ordered to specifically treat them the same as the men. Anyone caught giving them either preferential treatment or trying to haze them to quit, were going to be shown the door by the ARTB Commander.
Hazing is a hot button topic right now in the Army. Anyone caught doing it gets their careers ended.
I wouldn’t be too sure that this is the end of the argument about the standards being skewed against women. If my figures are correct, the graduation rate was 75% for males, and nearly 80% for females. It’s only a matter of (brief) time before someone is going to use that 5% as proof that the standards are gender-biased, thus requiring changes.
Whoops, I meant “non-graduation” rate is 75% & 80%, respectively; not “graduation” rate.
Where did youi get the Male attrition rate was 75%
Johnn’s post said 380 men started and 94 graduated, which I calculated to be about 24.7%. I didn’t factor in recycles, though.
Recycling is not uncommon, From what I gather Its not uncommon for a Graduate To have had to repeat a stage.
IIRC both the Females had to repeat one of the stages, so they are recycles.
Of those 286 men who didnt graduate yet,, how many were completely dropped and how many are a stage behind?
Actually, the female graduation rate was approx 10.5% (2 of 19) – not 20%.
You’re right, of course. (Stupid word problems.)
How is it gender-biased if the non-grad rates are so close to each other? That is not gender bias. It’s simple math.
The fail rate of SEAL classes is 75% to 80%, and those are all male candidates.
If the gender numbers had been reversed from the start, the non-grad rates would still have been the same, so how is it gender-biased?
Ex-PH2: While I agree with you that the graduation rates are so close that they don’t indicate gender-bias, I suspect that those hell-bent on “equality of outcome”, etc. will seize on the 5% difference to support their case that the standards should be changed.
That’s entirely possible, and very likely, NBI. I do not argue that point. The real issue, which is recruiting candidates who know and understand the risks they will be exposed to, is NOT being addressed.
Lowering the standards does not even acknowledge that women generally do not show an interest in that kind of risk. That we will protect our own at any cost, and fiercely, is almost universally true, but it is a reaction to being at risk, not going into a risky environment. (If that’s confusing, let me know.)
Exactly! Just read where the US Navy is looking at opening SEALs to females. They already opened other high risk jobs to females, and have had very few females go. EOD, and Riverine training. The numbers are pretty significant in that it shows a lack of desire among females to go into those jobs.
http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2015/08/18/women-seals-greenert-losey-buds/31943243/
A sincere congrats to the Women that graduated, but I wonder what kind of spin the snotnosed thumbsucking liberal Social Engineers in DC are going to put on this to push their political agenda?
I hope they are sent to their units to gain and make up that lost command time from the months they spent in the pipe.
But I have an odd feeling that they are about to spend the next year as PR personnel for all parties interested instead of leading troops. Not their fault of course, but a probable reality.
how about the idiotic spin the sexist fucktards are placing to diminish their accomplishment?
Well, see, Lars, the idiotic sexist fucktards you have mentioned frequently run their foolish yaps, and occasionally, they run into us WOMEN here at TAH, who let them know just what limp dicks we think THEY are.
Larsie-parsie the candyassed thumbsucking Rudy-poo, if we wanted any shit from you, someone would have squeezed your head by now.
The great Uniter in Chief will be there for his obligatory photo op moment. Shocking, I know.
http://www.havokjournal.com/nation/president-plans-to-attend-ranger-school-ceremony-this-guarantees-first-women-will-graduate/
So Obama can’t make a funeral for a lost soldier due to golf but he can trip on down for a PR op for these two. Wonder if the photo will be with just them or the entire graduating class?
I wonder how quickly B. Hussein 0bama will run off to go golfing after he’s gotten his PR photo with those RS Grads?
O’Bama is in last months of elected office, and for all intents and purposes transitioning into being past history.
The greater interest is not how fast he gets onto the golf course but what Hillary seizes on to strengthen appeal for her in her presidential bid and at the same time divert attention from her email problems.
Congrats to the 94 men who just earned their Ranger tab.
All this pooh about 2 women….. pffffttt.
Did the 94 make it straight through? Or are their recycles among them?
What the hell does this mean? How about congratulations to the 96 SOLDIERS that graduated ranger school?
Dammit I hate agreeing with you.
^^^^^
Word…if I have to say it.
Irony. That’s what the hell that does mean.
Think about it…
The idea behind the female soldiers attending Ranger school was that “they can do it too”, right?
Of course they can. So why all the pooh about them graduating? Rangers graduate every cycle, so why single these 2 out? Were they honor graduates?
I remember when I was growing up, how people, both men and women, told me there were things I couldn’t do because I was a girl. I couldn’t be a police officer, for example. Or captain a ship. Or be an astronaut.
These weren’t mean people. They were people who thought the stereotypes existed for a reason, and that the world was an ordered, sane place that would never change. Girls were meant to be gentle creatures that kept the home, raised the babies, and were protected by their men. It was a nice dream while it lasted.
We don’t live in that world anymore, if we ever really did. You are doing your daughters a grave disservice is you don’t train them to be strong. Teach them to think, to be independent, to fight. We live in a world that will plow them under and pave over them, if they aren’t ready to face it. No, it’s not a waste of money or time for women to go to Ranger school — or to become miners, or steel workers, or chemical engineers. Every woman that realizes her potential and destiny, no matter where that takes her, is one less woman who will cower to men who would reduce her to chattel — and we have men in our very midst who would do that instantly if they were given the chance, foreigners who think we are nothing but brainless slaves with fertile wombs. It will take every thinking person out there to fight what we now face. The best protection you can give your girls coming up in the dangerous world we live in today is to teach them how to fight, to make them strong.
What PN said.
I totally agree!!
Yay! Burn your bras, ladies! Screw all that sacrificing self for the sake of raising happy and well adjusted children! Screw femininity! Society is waaaaaay better off since women figured out that taking care of the family is for suckers. To hell with all of those misogynistic assholes who want to try and provide for their wives and children so that their wives can be around to provide a nurturing environment for the kids. Who the hell do they think they are anyway?!
My full respect to these two women.
I’m not going to denigrate their accomploishment with innuendos of favoritism, unnecessary cost, or lowering of standards.
From what I have read, these two women had impressed many of their male counterparts with their determination and will to succeed. After all, they did pass their peer reviews right? And the course was open to the media at times to ensure there was transparency and no favoritism.
The two female’s initial problem was the Darby phase, not unexpected, but they passed the mountain and swamp phases on their first try.
How many of the doubters and haters out there have ever tried Ranger school.
My hats off to them on their awesome accomplishment.
Nice job soldiers.
In all the hub-bub the reporters failed to mention the sighting of a fat sweating man and his “pretentedapotamus” spouse sitting by the Darby Queen with a shovel, mumbling about burying TAH under it.
Ah, the one, the only, Round Ranger. Darby Queen, pfft. That fat shit. More like Dairy Queen.
It has been almost 40 years since a young LT fresh out of Artillery OBC completed the Ranger course and received his Tab, but I will never forget the pride of being one of the 50% who made it. These women should feel an even greater pride. I knew the course would be tough, but having wrestled in college, I thought it wouldn’t be that much of a challange. That thought lasted about 2 days. These women certainly knew better than I had just how tough it might be, but they went anyway. I constantly had to remind myself that other men I had known had passed the course. These women had no such motivation. They led the way, and I would be honored to shake their hands.
Amen I feel the same way.
That these women refused to quit after the Darby phase, or at any moment of the program, is incredible.
I’m not Army so I wouldn’t know anything about any schools, but from reading about and seeing videos of Ranger school, I know how brutal it is. Many men, including Special Operations soldiers including Ranger Regiment soldiers, have tried and not received the tab.
When the media celebrates the likes of the Kartrashians, I hope more attention is paid to these heroic women as role models.
“The Washington Post seems upset that those two graduates can’t serve in the Ranger Battalions, but I’m not sure that they would want to live that life everyday for the next several years.”
I have a serious question here folks. I do not understand this. I thought the whole idea of this was for women to serve as and with Rangers. So then, if they are not allowed to serve in the Ranger Battalions, was this just as exercise to have women get the Ranger Tab for upward mobility in the ranks? If so, then I disagree with this program. If this is indeed the case then it is just a political ploy for rank advancement and not true service in an elite force.
I’m open to answers, opinions and slap downs if I am missing something here.
By the way I congratulate these women for finishing this arduous course. It speaks volumes to their perseverance, stamina and character. My question above was in no way meant to detract from their great accomplishment.
Ranger school serves other functions besides growing the cadre for the Ranger units. If the latter were the only purpose of Ranger school it would be tiny.
It’s true, the Ranger Regiment is the world’s premier light infantry formation as well as one of the best direct action special operations units in the world.
However, Ranger SCHOOL is not just a place where future Ranger regiment soldiers are trained, it’s also one of the most prominent and most intensive combat Leadership schools in the world.
There are plenty of schools that “teach” leadership in a classroom or even a “field” setting, but there are very few that subject the students to the kinds of stress they are likely to encounter in combat – and THEN subject them to leadership challenges.
That is one of the reasons why the Ranger tab is highly valued Army wide (and even among other services as well as the armed forces of other countries.)
A Ranger tab is proof that someone can not only be subjected to nearly inhuman levels of stress and survive, and perform, but that person can be subjected to those stresses and still be able to THINK and LEAD.
Martinjmpr…Thank you sir. I understand more fully now. I appreciate your excellent explanation.
By contrast, the SFQC (Special Forces Qualification Course) does exist solely for the purpose of filling up the 7 Special Forces Groups (5 on active duty, 2 in the National Guard) with qualified personnel to serve in SF positions. Unlike Ranger school which is often used as a leadership school and sometimes offered as an incentive to cadets or to outstanding soldiers as a kind of “reward” for superior performance, you can’t get into SFQC unless you plan on being assigned to an SF unit.
Having said that, I’m sure it will not be long before the pressure starts to integrate women into SF positions. FWIW women already serve in support capacities in SF units and have for years.
How many do-overs did the 2 ladies get and was it above normal compared to men? Seems like i remember a few for each?
I didn’t care before and I don’t care now. oBaMa’s pre-scheduled photo op makes me suspicious.
▲▲Like▲▲
I’m not surprised that the two graduates were West Pointers though. The competition just to get into West Point is so severe that there aren’t many ‘duds’ that get through, “ring knocker” jokes notwithstanding.
Wife and I toured West Point this Summer (it was the first time I’d ever been there, even though I’d toured both Annapolis and the AFA many years ago) and I was impressed. There were a few cadets around – I think they were 2nd or 3rd classmen who were training to become the cadre for the incoming Plebes.
I have to admit it was a little weird to look at their young faces and to think that these are the future generals and colonels who will lead the Army into its future. Kind of made me feel old! 😀
To those 2 who passed, congratulations. To the idiots in congress, and kiss-asses in the DOD and on down the line who either ordered it or made it happen, thanks for wasting millions of dollars. I’ve served with women in MI units and Airborne units. Know what happens? They are awesome spooks. But almost none of them can even keep up much less excel in an elite unit. And the ones who survive do it the way women do everything. Take advantage of their strengths and play off their weaknesses as unfair and have the standards lowered. The exceptionally few, and that is after half a dozen weedings out of basic, AIT, jump school and in this case Ranger School, who actually finish and survive (how much time and money did that take) divide the unit right down the middle because half the guys want in their pants and can’t have it and the other half she is giving it to them one at a time then moving on to the next guy. This is true in every unit, elite, leg, stateside and overseas. It’s also true in the civilian world. If this happens at IBM then your computer has a glitch and you return it. Happens in a Ranger stick?
After reading this bullshit I had to wipe my ass.
Thanks heaps, ERIC, you dickless duck, for letting us all know about your personal inadequacies, and how annoyed you are that there are women who are better at doing things than you are.
Now be a good boy, go back to your desk and count paper clips. It’s about all you’re good for.
Of the 6 women that were assigned to my Airborne Company 5 were pregnant in a year or less. Didn’t improve our unit readiness much.
Take testosterone soaked 18-20 year old men, women in an environment that has few so all the guys pursue them and give them an inflated view of themselves and viola! Nature happens. Sorry but it does. Unless you put all lesbians into all gay Co’s then you are going to have problems.
So, in your view, jonp, all women are sluts or lesbians and the only place we belong is in the kitchen or the cleaning equipment closet.
I don’t see anyone’s NAME on this world except MINE
OH, yeah – while I’m at it, if you are going to use an expressive word, at least spell it correctly.
‘VIOLA’ is a musical stringed instrument, slightly larger than a violin.
‘V-O-I-L-A’ means ‘there you are!’ in French. 8 years of French high school and college, BA in Modern Languages.
You could at least have the grace to give these women credit for what they accomplished, you know. You want everyone to pat you on the back for doing something, but you can’t do it for somebody else?
Well this does settle one debate: who’s tougher-Rangers or Marines?
2 female LTs made it through Ranger school
0 female LTs made it the Marine IOBC.
Let the poo flinging commence!!
It wasn’t just 19 women who were put into training to get 2 graduates (a third is still there, BTW), it was 120 who were put into the training pipeline of pre-Ranger. 15% who went twice and 1 who went three times.
While I applaud their accomplishment, along with the 94 men who also earned their tabs, looking at the cost/benefit analysis is appropriate.
Or, do we just say show up like everyone else, and if you fail and are an NCO/officer it goes on your record as a negative discriminator?
Assuming current standards remain in place, I have no problem with the “volunteer, get selected, then just show up” option. Doing that would actually yield meaningful data which could be used to support a rational decision concerning opening combat arms MOSs to females.
But I’m not holding my breath waiting to see that.
Indeed the flaw in your statement is yielding a rational decision….that’s something that appears to more difficult with every passing day in our PC society and apparently our now PC military.
Whatever happened to killing people and blowing shit up?
Now we are all commending 2 women for doing something under circumstances not afforded any of the male candidates, certainly the standards weren’t lowered but paid training time for half a year and hand picking to yield 2 hardly seems like a success story.
If we are going to allow women to attend after having a chance to preview the course and then spend 6 months training for it we should allow males the same option….I suspect under those circumstances far more males would pass than currently without the 6 month prep training option.
But hey, let’s keep pretending they did the SAME thing as the men…it all sounds good even if it is a load of bullshit.
VOV, have you got a link for the ‘paid training time for half a year’ thing? Genuinely curious – I’ve heard that thrown around a few times, but it’s never been mentioned via the grapevine with the friends who know one of the women who made it. I’ll ask directly next time I see one who would know, but I’d love to see a first-hand source about this.
And I’d say at the simplest level, they did do the same thing as the men – they passed Ranger School while under the same standards. Maybe they had more training, maybe they were just more disciplined, maybe they love pain and misery, I don’t know, but what they did was to pass Ranger school just the same as the men with them. I left this below, but I’ll share it again – a write-up by Nick of Ranger Up on this:
http://rhinoden.rangerup.com/time-to-welcome-a-new-era-of-rangers-army/
Apparently, the fact that there is a 14-day pre-Ranger prep course which follows an 8-week preparation of physical training plus a one-week recovery from that 8 weeks, making the total 11 weeks – almost 3 months – of prep work well ahead of Ranger School itself.
So the women who got the prep course did not, if I understand the Army’s plan, actually get any treatment not offered to male soldiers, other than a bit of extra time to mentally and physically prepare them for the Ranger course itself. I think it’s reasonable to assume that the reason for the extra time was to weed out those who were simply unsuited to any of it, even the most modest aspects of the physical training.
Or maybe all of us girls should just be home knitting and fixing roast beef and mashed potatoes or something.
“did not… actually get any treatment not offered to male soldiers, other than a bit of extra time to mentally and physically prepare them for the Ranger course itself.”
So other than extra training time not available to the guys, they got the same as the guys (except what the guys couldn’t get and the women did)? OK, I think I go that.
Perhaps I was not specific enough. Generalized statements do leave such issues undefined at times.
The 3 extra months that the WOMEN got were most likely used by the Army to weed out those women who were not serious about being Rangers and going through what IS the toughest program of training that the Army has to offer. There is no indication that this extra time is needed for candidates who are men.
I think that is the most reasonable explanation for the extra time.
By your logic if those same standards were applied to men I would expect a 90% grad rate for them. Weeding out the weak is a sure way to boost numbers before the actual training takes place. After all of that special prep to artificially boost the numbers the woman still managed a grand total of 2 grads. Not stunning and takes away from the several spots men who could have graduated without the special prep. How much money did our new downsized military spend on this experiment? Yay us
The military combat capability concern isn’t about a difference between men and women, masculinity and femininity. Neither is it about leading all levels of organizations in a peacetime military. Each level of combat unit organization requires a different quality of leading. There is a demarcation between enlisted and NCO for the same reasons as there is a demarcation between Company Grade Officer, Field Grade Officer and Flag Officer. Unfortunately the demarcations between the three commissioned officer command grades of Company, Field, and Flag also comes with different size of organization being tactically led in the fight to win as well as a larger scope from tactical leading the smaller tactical unit with command in an immediate area to strategically lead larger numbers of tactical units in a larger area of operations to dominate and control. The Korean War and subsequently the South East Asia conflicts, to a lesser degree, demonstrated beyond question being designated (appointed) leader in the peacetime military is less demanding than obtaining and sustaining unit integrity in the face of the enemy or in extraordinary demands to march significant distances under harsh conditions to reinforce and strengthen sieged positions. Anybody can make it through a demanding inconvenient 61-day course that has train-up prerequisites (course prerequisites are needed necessity), the problem is readiness and availability of the individual to be utilized after getting this training. It is here there is much similarity to obtaining and sustaining adequate or sufficient quality or level of physical fitness to be there fighting. In this regard the 1947 FM 21-20, Physical Training concisely and precisely identified that although individuals can be trained up to needed levels of physical fitness within 10-15 weeks, keeping individuals at this level of fitness is difficult when most individuals lack the willingness to sustain their physical fitness. The same is true pertinent to having and sustaining willingness to command and lead troops in action. The purpose of the Ranger School was never to train elite infantry soldiers to fight or to be commandos, raiders or marauders but to develop through training simulations the mental agility to employ… Read more »
Here’s a fantastic article by Nick of RangerUp:
http://rhinoden.rangerup.com/time-to-welcome-a-new-era-of-rangers-army/
Does anybody else see females beating down Army recruiter’s doors this week and asking for Infantry AIT??
No, and it’s probably because being Rangers is not the kind of career they have in mind for themselves. I like a challenge, but even I have no interest in a program like that.
I have no words for this you recycle someone 8 times and bend the rules for them and yes they will pass this shit makes me SICK !!!! But on a lighter note Congrats
The biggest reason I heard for the push to get women into Ranger School is that it is impossible to advance in Infantry if the Officer does not. This makes an unfair burden being placed on the women and a “glass ceiling” they can’t break.
Whether or not women belong in front line infantry in the first place is another question.
So effective immediately all female only physical requirements will be removed from basic entry into the armed forces and they will now be held to the same standards as males?
…..
Sheet! I’d like the standards to be enforced, period! I can even begin to count the number of fatbodies and sickcall Rangers we had on the line. FFS, things got bad in ’05-09 time frame because of the news and the need to fill boots. The Infantry ain’t the kind of place to screw around. Luckily we had numerous driver positions to fill so tubby f**ks could stay near their stickys and chewys. But the military and American society in general is suffering from the “participation trophy effect” so all you need is desire and the rest is rubber stamped. <— There's a CiC gibe in there somewhere.
I’m surprised no one caught this.
Number of women who completed Ranger Training: 2
Skydiving Clowns who completed Ranger Training: 0