7
7
0
Takes a different look at things. Not male vs female stance but grunt vs non grunts or "POGs". Good read and interesting read nonetheless, weather you agree or not.
Ranger School
Infantry
11B1V: Airborne Ranger
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 18
7
7
0
I think this article is bunk; well-written bunk, but bunk nonetheless. The first problem with the first part of the article is that there is no proof that Ranger School is a "punch" for promotion. We just retired GEN Ray Odierno and will soon retire GEN Martin Dempsey, two of the most influential and distinguished Service-members of our day. Neither of those men, the former CSA and CJCS, are Ranger qualified. Ranger School has previously had Sergeants Major and field-grade officers as students; are they punching their ticket? Are they going to employ those tactical combat skills? No, hopefully not (more on this below, Ranger School is a leadership school). Certainly, if all other factors are equal then having the Ranger Tab should lead to promotion. But that hardly makes it a punch.
The second problem with the first part of the article is his suggestion that women weaken the military. His proof is a vague reference to "our allies and our enemies." He calls women's inclusion a strategic failure, but that is incredibly narrow and short-sighted. We are in a volunteer military within a democratic republic. Strategy includes the home front as well as the theater of combat. The U.S. Military needs to be a reflection (not a proportional microcosm) of the nation. This issue does not boil down to some tracking instructor's views on national defense policy. Our elected representatives will eventually force us to change our institutions if we do not own up to policing our own profession. Policing a profession means reexamining assumptions and preconceptions. By all reasonable and verifiable evidence, two women out of an original class of 19 (an attrition rate of nearly 90 per cent) passed the course by the same rigorous standards which have made Ranger School famous. The argument that "women couldn't pass Marine Infantry School, so these two must not have passed the much more difficult Ranger School without having the standards lowered" is critically flawed; these two women never attended the Marine Corps' school. How many more women in the Army (and other Services) can pass Ranger School? Some, even many, if we give them a chance, but none can pass if we don't. Getting back to the main point, who really cares about the "cultures that we interact with" if we don't care about our own culture? The United States are about leading the world, not hesitating to do what is right because of what our Allies or enemies (what is he thinking??) think about it.
The problem with "Part 2" of combat Santa Claus' rant, as alluded to above, is that Ranger School is in fact a leadership school. As the author points out, correctly, "[e]mphasis is placed on the development of individual combat skills and abilities," but in an ironic twist given his accusations, it is he who is still "NOT GETTING IT." Ranger Students are NOT graded on individual combat skills and abilities (except in the first week of the school and then only very briefly). Teaching individual combat skills is the responsibility of basic training and of the Soldier's unit. Does the author believe that we have no reason to send AG Soldiers (or Finance, Quartermaster, Ordnance, Maintenance, etc.) to basic training? Why do those MOSs need any individual combat skills? The reason why they do is obvious, but that reason also makes clear why it is obvious to train women in these skills, and why it is now becoming obvious why women should be allowed to compete for a Ranger School slot. Those tactical, combat skills are Common Tasks! "Emphasis" is placed on those skills and abilities in Ranger School because it wouldn't make much sense to make Ranger students man a TOC or a checkpoint on no sleep, no food, and while humping 100 pounds. The word "emphasis" has its own meaning, and the author misses the point when he attributes the utility of the entire School merely to the skills and abilities which are *emphasized*. The point he misses is that Ranger Students are graded on their leadership abilities; to pass the course, you must get 40 other tired, starving, heavily encumbered, stinking, stressed, giardia infested people to keep going and complete the assigned mission.
If Ranger School as we knew it is dead, then let it rest in peace, and long live the new Ranger School.
The second problem with the first part of the article is his suggestion that women weaken the military. His proof is a vague reference to "our allies and our enemies." He calls women's inclusion a strategic failure, but that is incredibly narrow and short-sighted. We are in a volunteer military within a democratic republic. Strategy includes the home front as well as the theater of combat. The U.S. Military needs to be a reflection (not a proportional microcosm) of the nation. This issue does not boil down to some tracking instructor's views on national defense policy. Our elected representatives will eventually force us to change our institutions if we do not own up to policing our own profession. Policing a profession means reexamining assumptions and preconceptions. By all reasonable and verifiable evidence, two women out of an original class of 19 (an attrition rate of nearly 90 per cent) passed the course by the same rigorous standards which have made Ranger School famous. The argument that "women couldn't pass Marine Infantry School, so these two must not have passed the much more difficult Ranger School without having the standards lowered" is critically flawed; these two women never attended the Marine Corps' school. How many more women in the Army (and other Services) can pass Ranger School? Some, even many, if we give them a chance, but none can pass if we don't. Getting back to the main point, who really cares about the "cultures that we interact with" if we don't care about our own culture? The United States are about leading the world, not hesitating to do what is right because of what our Allies or enemies (what is he thinking??) think about it.
The problem with "Part 2" of combat Santa Claus' rant, as alluded to above, is that Ranger School is in fact a leadership school. As the author points out, correctly, "[e]mphasis is placed on the development of individual combat skills and abilities," but in an ironic twist given his accusations, it is he who is still "NOT GETTING IT." Ranger Students are NOT graded on individual combat skills and abilities (except in the first week of the school and then only very briefly). Teaching individual combat skills is the responsibility of basic training and of the Soldier's unit. Does the author believe that we have no reason to send AG Soldiers (or Finance, Quartermaster, Ordnance, Maintenance, etc.) to basic training? Why do those MOSs need any individual combat skills? The reason why they do is obvious, but that reason also makes clear why it is obvious to train women in these skills, and why it is now becoming obvious why women should be allowed to compete for a Ranger School slot. Those tactical, combat skills are Common Tasks! "Emphasis" is placed on those skills and abilities in Ranger School because it wouldn't make much sense to make Ranger students man a TOC or a checkpoint on no sleep, no food, and while humping 100 pounds. The word "emphasis" has its own meaning, and the author misses the point when he attributes the utility of the entire School merely to the skills and abilities which are *emphasized*. The point he misses is that Ranger Students are graded on their leadership abilities; to pass the course, you must get 40 other tired, starving, heavily encumbered, stinking, stressed, giardia infested people to keep going and complete the assigned mission.
If Ranger School as we knew it is dead, then let it rest in peace, and long live the new Ranger School.
(7)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
LTC (Join to see), I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "level playing field." Dozens of Ranger students are allowed to recycle every cycle, and some are Day One'd. People spend months, even close to a year, in Ranger School.
The flaw in reasoning I was pointing out is a hasty generalization. The fact that none of the women admitted to Marine IOC passed is only tautological proof; it is proof that *those women* didn't pass, and we already know that. Maybe Griest and Haver could pass IOC. There are undoubtedly many women who can pass IOC, but none of them have attended yet. It would be ridiculous to point to a male Ranger wash-out and conclude that no men can pass Ranger School, or that there will be pressure to drop the standards to get the male wash-outs to pass. The same goes for women.
The flaw in reasoning I was pointing out is a hasty generalization. The fact that none of the women admitted to Marine IOC passed is only tautological proof; it is proof that *those women* didn't pass, and we already know that. Maybe Griest and Haver could pass IOC. There are undoubtedly many women who can pass IOC, but none of them have attended yet. It would be ridiculous to point to a male Ranger wash-out and conclude that no men can pass Ranger School, or that there will be pressure to drop the standards to get the male wash-outs to pass. The same goes for women.
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
OK, link works. And, thanks. Get your ILE done if you haven't already, it will take at least a year to complete.
(0)
(0)
CPT John Hanaberry
Ranger tab nov ' 66. Hey Major. I thought you would be interested in a few facts about the ' OLD ' Ranger school. NO RECYCLES were allowed. Except for medical. You got ONE SHOT to complete in 9 WEEKS NOT 4 to 6 MONTHS. Charlie Beckwith was Camp Commander. Why have standards been lowered SO MUCH? So girls can pass? Last thing I needed was a girl on the battlefield. RVN Infantry Combat Vet Ranger Advisor Vietnamese Army
(1)
(0)
CPT John Hanaberry
Maj a few ‘OLD’ Ranger school facts. Ranger tab. Nov. ‘ 66. NO RECYCLES were allowed except medical. You got ONE shot to complete in 9 WEEKS NOT this 4 to 6 MONTHS Nonsense how many times did it take the girls to pass Benning phase? Why have standards been lowered so much Ranger Advisor RVN 1968, 1969
(0)
(0)
7
7
0
Yes, this is a well written article but the fact remains, neither the author, I or anyone else here was there during the class that these two females attended. We cannot sit here and say that without a doubt, these women were given special treatment to ensure their success throughout the course.
As I followed this major event, my mind has continuously gone back to when the military would open itself to allow "new people" to join. For example, the Tuskegee Airmen. Here you saw African American males attend and complete flight school. These men had to bust their butts day and day out; not only to pass the course requirements but to pass the test of public thought. Many thought that these men would not be as effective when flying. These men, while commissioned officers, were not always allotted the same rights and privileges as their white counterparts. When they first deployed, they were far removed from the combat but once given the chance, these men proved themselves to be very effective against the Germans. The bombers started to request "The Red Tails" because of their success rate in escorting bombers in and out of the enemy held air space.
So fast forward to 2015, we are seeing almost the same thing. The public is doubting these two women. These two women have successfully completed the course, yet the public continues to say they were given special treatment when in fact, none of us were there. I lay my trust in the professionalism of the Ranger Instructors. I lay my trust in the fact that they held these two females to exact same standard as the males in the course. I lay my trust in the fact we have seen females time and time again perform successfully along side their male counterparts both in training and in the combat zone.
Will we see more females try to complete the course? I'm sure we will. I'm also sure we will see some wash out and others complete it. I'm also sure that over time, as more and more people gain acceptance of the fact that these women aren't just handed the Ranger Tab that the public thought will turn from a negative view to a positive view.
As I followed this major event, my mind has continuously gone back to when the military would open itself to allow "new people" to join. For example, the Tuskegee Airmen. Here you saw African American males attend and complete flight school. These men had to bust their butts day and day out; not only to pass the course requirements but to pass the test of public thought. Many thought that these men would not be as effective when flying. These men, while commissioned officers, were not always allotted the same rights and privileges as their white counterparts. When they first deployed, they were far removed from the combat but once given the chance, these men proved themselves to be very effective against the Germans. The bombers started to request "The Red Tails" because of their success rate in escorting bombers in and out of the enemy held air space.
So fast forward to 2015, we are seeing almost the same thing. The public is doubting these two women. These two women have successfully completed the course, yet the public continues to say they were given special treatment when in fact, none of us were there. I lay my trust in the professionalism of the Ranger Instructors. I lay my trust in the fact that they held these two females to exact same standard as the males in the course. I lay my trust in the fact we have seen females time and time again perform successfully along side their male counterparts both in training and in the combat zone.
Will we see more females try to complete the course? I'm sure we will. I'm also sure we will see some wash out and others complete it. I'm also sure that over time, as more and more people gain acceptance of the fact that these women aren't just handed the Ranger Tab that the public thought will turn from a negative view to a positive view.
(7)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
I said the same thing in another post about women in Ranger school and I was throwing out the race card. Facts are something else. We're in a new era, and some changes aren't bad at all; they're sorely needed.
(2)
(0)
SGT Ben Keen
SSG Warren Swan - I agree with you, we are in a new era. But isn't it funny how people had this exact same argument all those years earlier about the Tuskegee Airmen and even their arguments were unfounded we find ourselves yet again having the exact same debate, this time instead of race, a person's sex is the based of the argument.
(2)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
SGT Ben Keen - Very true. And it's sad. I had mixed feelings about DADT being repealed, but when you really look at it, they've been serving honorably for centuries. If they can and have proven themselves in and out of battle, why not let them serve? And women face an uphill battle in almost everything they do or have to do. Now what will be the excuse to exclude them now? Can't have this because of this, can't be that because of that, well maybe it's time to get over it and allow anyone to be whatever they want to be and accept it. My hats off to these Soldiers...male and female!
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
Ranger School "as we knew it" was dead in 95 when the four students drowned. Prior to that RI's simply walked with the students, observed and graded them. Now, students are guided into lanes that have been cleared the day before, that have medics on boats positioned up and downstream, helicopters with hoists on standby, several FLA's on standby, and the evacuation system is tested and rehearsed in each phase at the beginning of each class. The entire way Ranger School is conducted changed. It's much less dangerous now, you will probably not die. But, it's still brutally difficult, and you might wish you were dead a few times.
(4)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google