"Will the Army open its elite Ranger Regiment to women?" Topic

A controversial decision awaits.

"Air National Guard C-130s roared over the lush, shaggy grass of the Elizabeth Drop Zone here last week, a near-steady hum overhead. Army Ranger students were a few hours into a mission known as Operation Pegasus, and needed to parachute in from a height of about 1,100 feet.

Air crews made several passes without letting any students out due to breezy conditions deemed unsafe for jumping. But eventually, the students' green chutes dotted the early evening Thursday sky. They floated down into the open fields of Eglin with 70 pounds of equipment, food and water before disappearing into thick brush, beginning a 10-day exercise that ends this Saturday and is the last major field event in the Army's famously difficult Ranger School.

History is in the balance: For the first time, two female students advanced to the third and final phase of the notoriously exhausting course in the swamps of Florida and are within reach of graduating. If they pass, they will become the first Ranger-qualified women in the history of the U.S. military and will be celebrated at an Aug. 21 graduation ceremony at Fort Benning, Ga., that is expected to draw not only family and friends, but hundreds of other well-wishers and media from across the country…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Ranger training is tough (it was 25 years ago when I went through) however it is just a qualification not the same as being in the Ranger Regiment. They used say "the tab is the tab, but the Battalions are a way of life."

I always wish every Soldier well, but if I were king political correctness would not be my choice for defending our nation. The purpose of our nations armed forces is to defend our nation and its Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, not to make political points or win a university debate.

This whole thing is still tainted by different standards for men and women, they are still working out what standards are needed.

I think the bottom line is if they qualify they qualify, and if they don't they don't. There really doesn't need to be any debate beyond that.

-Will

I was recently reading some reminiscences sparked by the daft idea to make British selection easier as a result of a couple of fatalities. They recalled similar incidents from decades ago, when "questions were asked in the House" (although I am a bit sceptical about that since before Prince's Gate the "House" did not have much clue that the Regiment even existed let alone what it got up to – halcyon days.)
Anyway, when asked what should be said one of the legendary NCO's from the "old and bold" suggested "lets just say it is nature's way of telling them they have failed."

When the same black humour can cross sexes and not provoke howls of condemnation to change standards – then we shall have come of age.

Many girls, from the Redcaps, the greenfinches, IC etc. served in the Det. So why not? Difficulty is going to be how to react when something really nasty happens.

This is my take after 20 years in the Marine Corps. We aren't fighting conventional forces any more. If we were fighting some European country again I'd say yeah Ok if they can make so what, but we aren't we fighting animals that torture, maim, kill, Loot and rape. I cannot get over my natural instinct to protect women or children and it would drive me insane knowing a female Marine was captured and being used like a sexual party favor before they cut her head off. Yes I am a conservative so I don't really believe in a woman sallying forth and doing battle. I ask this question, if woman are openly accepted into infantry units does that mean the old saying of "Women and children first" is old fashioned and now its freaking everyman for himself?

I've been keeping up with the ladies via the Washington Post (3, w/1 recycled) and they've met EVERY male standard that the course is based upon.

You pass…you deserve it. There is NO PC there, and you can check it out for yourselves.

Having said that, I will temper it w/a bit of what Irish Marine stated, but just a bit.

If they pass, they pass.

Truck drivers, cooks, nurses and helicopter pilots can be captured and raped, so I find that line of thought to be a fairly hollow argument, although I understand the inclination to go that way. Jessica Lynch comes to mind.

As has ben mentioned above, warfare is different now. Front lines are blurry so the REMFs are just as vulnerable as the combat arms, which means that women who are serving in support arms (medics, clerks, supply techs, etc) are already at risk of being killed or captured.

However the other side of this is that there is a clear advantage to having women's feet in some of those boots on the ground. Much of the activities of soldiers in places like Afghanistan is related to non-combat activities, talking to locals, hearts and minds activities. An infantry officer mate of mine told me that one of the best assets he could take into a village in Afghanistan was a female medic. He knew that his patrol would only be in the village for a few hours at most, and as soon as his guys were around the corner, Taliban would be back. But while he was there, he had this woman "doctor" who could engage the local women and THAT was something that Taliban DID NOT have.

In asymmetric warfare, it's not just filling body bags that matters, it's convincing the locals that they're better off with us than with the other guys. And one of the things that our side pushes is stronger roles for women. If we're to be honest about that, then the locals get the message strongest when they see us practicing as we preach. The locals (especially the local women) see women being treated as full, equal members of the western forces (American, British, etc), then they start to question why their men are telling them to stay hidden, stay in the kitchen, etc.

So, yes, definitely let the women in but don't see it as lowering standards, but as giving our troops in the field another advantage that their enemies don't have.

I think willthepiper has it right; women soldiers already face risks daily, and what they can bring to the field can be vastly important to these sort of conflicts.

-Will

If they pass then allow it, but no tweaking the standards.

I'll wait and see … but the standards must be upheld …

I always wish every Soldier well, but if I were king political correctness would not be my choice for defending our nation. The purpose of our nations armed forces is to defend our nation and its Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, not to make political points or win a university debate.

This whole thing is still tainted by different standards for men and women, they are still working out what standards are needed.

Amen COL … Amen …

This whole thing is still tainted by different standards for men and women

There should only be one objective minimum standard and if you meet it, you're in…regardless of gender.

Even the guys in Special Forces discovered it helped having a female in the group to handle the local women.

Again these are areas to be careful with, now the higher ups are talking about Transgenders and active duty, how do we handle that mess?

Is it a mess? If you can march, shoot and kill does it matter what's between your legs?

-Will

Yeah it's a mess; we are now social engineering the military.

Even the guys in Special Forces discovered it helped having a female in the group to handle the local women.

Yes, very true, but they were not RANGER or SF qualified. They received more training and were attached to Spec Ops units.

Yeah it's a mess; we are now social engineering the military.

Sure sounds a bit like it …

One question is removing women from units. When we geared up for Gulf I we had over half our women not deployable due to pregnancy. It may not be a big deal for REMF units but what happens when a team of 4 goes down 1? If they can do the physical, fine they can do the job, but there are practical matters that I don't hear much about. High tempo deployments must require more up-time than desk jobs where it's more 9-5.

That is just one of the downsides. As you saw. I've heard stories of females getting pregnant on purpose to get deployed out of a combat zone, etc.(?) … Of course those gals would probably not volunteer for RANGER training.

yeast infections…..happens when women can not stay clean enough.

As I have said before, 1988 USMC tried to train a Motor T battalion on Okie. Lets spend some time in the bush. I was the XO of the training company, A/1/6 Marines. No heads, not showers, poor hygiene. the women starting dropping fairly quickly. Injuries and yeast infections.

How many of the women who operated with SF etc went back to base daily or every couple of days? Maybe in short burst they can make it. But a woman who has access to facilities daily….not comparable to days or weeks without a bath. And sorry helmet baths or baby wipes do not cut it.

Stamina……they do not have it like males. Just the way nature made them. Policy should not be made based on a couple of other than normal females. I watched 60 Minutes when they talked about it. Every, again every, woman that has tried the USMC IOC has failed. A few of the enlisted have made it through. One of them, a Lcpl said even though she made it, she knew she could not cut it over a long period of time. Just google the show.

Hollywood has done much to distort our culture into blurring lines that should not be blurred.

Yeast infection? While I can see it being a problem, how did women handle it for thousands of years? Women were designed to live in the bush just like you and me, just got soft in the modern world.

I think it's still basically the domain of men, but I also think that there could be a way to select candidates based on skills, intelligence, cool under fire and so on that would justify women being accepted into an elite combat unit.

If I had a choice between a 200lb guy who can benchpress 300lbs, and who is a mediocre shot, or a 120 lb woman who can only bench 100 lbs, but is an outstanding shot, and has a reputation of cool under fire, I think I'd pick the woman.

I believe Dr. Ruth was a sniper in the Israeli army, and she's tiny.

we are now social engineering the military.

With all due respect, isn't the military one giant social engineering project to begin with? All branches of the military create and promulgate their own unique culture that is separate from mainstream civilian culture. I hear you on concerns that this culture sometimes gets off on tangents that have nothing to do with actually being better at it's mission, but the current issues are hardly the only time this has happened.

-Will

All branches of the military create and promulgate their own unique culture that is separate from mainstream civilian culture.

Yes, generally you associate with those like yourself. And in many cases you are together 24 hrs/day, for very long periods of time. The service member has little in common with the general civilian population. Regardless, the US the military makes up less than 1% of the populous.

" aren't we fighting animals that torture, maim, kill, Loot and rape. I cannot get over my natural instinct to protect women or children and it would drive me insane knowing a female Marine was captured and being used like a sexual party favor before they cut her head off."

I hate to break the bad news to you, but every U.S. soldier, male or not, is vulnerable to being raped if captured by some of our current enemies.

I hate to break the bad news to you, but every U.S. soldier, male or not, is vulnerable to being raped if captured by some of our current enemies.

Which is so true, yet so very sad … Just more reason to terminate with extreme prejudice. With drones, airstrikes and maybe even TLAMs/SLAMs. Regardless of collateral damage in some cases. Or this medieval madness will continue unabated. As again it appears the local forces don't have the "ability" for a number of reasons to clean their own houses … Sad but true, IMO …

I am curious how you figure that bombing with no regard to collateral damage is going to make the locals give a **** about supporting us?

If the Russians invaded tomorrow and your family was wiped out by an aerial raid, would you feel inclined to surrender?

Congratulations to the women who passed! And for those who are still whining, I refer you to the Ranger communication in which they discussed how no proof of passing, or no qualification accomplishment, can satisfy some people.

As I said, I laud and congratulate those New RANGERS … all of them …

I am curious how you figure that bombing with no regard to collateral damage is going to make the locals give a **** about supporting us?

It won't, but it appears it would mean little either way. And I said in some cases … Plus Many of the civilians are leaving for Europe, and again the local forces are relatively ineffective. They have to take the fight on ground to the enemy … not run away … If the enemy had suffered more/some attrition in both leadership, supplies, and bodies, this could help. And I'm not talking about a WWII type or Rolling Thunder operation either.

"In the absence of orders, go find something and kill it." – Field Marshal Erwin Rommel

A bit broad brush … but this is working for the enemy. Not that we should "turn into the monster", but maybe we need to be a bit more aggressive. The West in the air and the locals on the ground …however, it appears none of this will happen. And the region will continue to devolve into Mad Max Thunder Dome …