Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
Let Women Go to Ranger School Already, Part II
The comments people have left regarding my post yesterday are fascinating and worth checking out. Many are open to women attending Ranger School and other infantry training in theory but have absolutely no faith whatsoever that the U.S. Army will not water down physical standards. This is my greatest concern as well, mainly because, as I argued in the original post, the U.S. Army always screws this up.
I believe holding men and women in the military to different physical standards -- and holding people in different age groups to different physical standards -- is wrong. In war (and elsewhere in life), you can either do the job or you cannot. If you want to have different physical requirements for different military occupational specialties, fine. The physical demands placed on an Airborne Ranger are different than those placed on a truck driver or dental hygienist, and I don't expect the latter to be able to do all the things the former can do.
The physical standards for Ranger School are, regardless of anyone's age, the ones that apply to the male 17-21 year-old age group -- which are the hardest standards. Those should then be the standards for women who attend the course, right? Again, in theory, this makes sense. But the U.S. Army always always always ends up watering down the physical standards when it looks like too few women might qualify.
As I wrote yesterday, I think this cheats the women out there who can compete with their male peers on a level playing field. And it cheats all women because it, again, teaches everyone in the military that women are the weaker sex and need a graded scale in order to serve their country.
This is ridiculous. Sex and gender equality does not mean lowering the standards to allow more women to serve. Sex and gender equality means caring far less about the sex of someone and more about what that person can or cannot do physically. If we end up having fewer women in the service as a result, that's okay because everyone will know those women advanced on merit and did not need anyone to place their thumb on the scale when it came time to asess their physical capabilities.
It's just sad that so few believe the U.S. Army has the integrity to do this.
Part of this is
Part of this is institutional. There are what are known as officer "scare badges" that are necessary tickets to punch for promotion. Airbrone, Ranger, and SF have all been "scare badges" at one time or another. SF was removed from the list when SF became a separate career path and officers couldn't cycle through an SF slot to buff their record.
As long as Ranger school is on the "scare badge" list, it's a target for watering-down to provide promotional equality. Create a SOCOM career path and remove the school from the "scare badge" list.
Being an Airborne graduate (7-84) before the sickner factor was removed, I remember when almost every female lieutenant in my class (20+ out of 400) was recycled out when they failed the physical requirements ("aggresively" judged entrance PT test, pull-ups, Friday run). Since Airborne is the #1 "scare badge" the training was "reorganized for better efficiency" to eliminate the high recycle rate and became more of a "gentlepersons" course around, as I recollect, the beginining of the 1990s. Also, the early 90's were about the time that SOCOM was founded and the 82nd lost its role as the base of the SOF pyramid.
I think this is the (on
I think this is the (on balance, acceptable) price we pay for civilian control of the military. Civilian government is inherently political, and thus will always tilt toward political expediency.
It's politically incorrect to suggest that the vast majority of women do not have the upper body strength of a 21-year-old man, or that such strength is important in combat. Which means that this will be a hard line for the Army to hold.
Well, yes and no. Sure, a
Well, yes and no. Sure, a Ranger and a JAG might reasonably be held to different physical fitness standards (although you err up, so as to have a flexible force). But the physical fitness standards are always a proxy for other things, right? For example it's good for the soldiers not to look like fatasses just for appearance and pride reasons, or physically unable to handle the climate stresses of a deployment. And so consider your dentists and dental hygeinists, who really don't need to be as physically capable as rangers. But a 50-year old O6 and a 20-year old O1 in those jobs -- well, the minimum standards the O6 can pass an be adequate will demand he sorta kinda be in shape, whereas the O1 can presumably get the same APFT raw scores and be an undeployable fatass. Furthermore the fatass tendencies of the 20-year old who squeaks by the numbers which the 50-year old has to work to meet, suggest he/she will, as he/she ages, fail, and you've wasted resources on that career development. So it seems obvious you need a certain amount of age stratification in at least some disciplines.
I agree actually, and have
I agree actually, and have been saying this in my own way. But they will water down the standards .
That's why people are objecting.
"the U.S. Army always screws this up." YES.
Anything Political the Army always seems to want to recreate the Soviet Union's Political Commissariats Indoctrination Training...with all the intelligence and subtlety of USSR Architecture and Art. And the same shit results.
But cheer up. As you know we're no longer in the business of winning wars in any case.
Gotta say Dr X -- since you
Gotta say Dr X -- since you know they'll throw the game and cave...why bemoan the shame? You understand the Military perfectly well. And so do the commenters', and so does BlackFive.
I'm sympathetic. I went to Iraq again at age 39-40 and I somehow was mystified and let down that they all but completely blew it, and just saved face and took the opportunity to smash AQIZ at the end.
We have great warriors, mediocre Generals, and absolutely worthless political leadership. And once again, that town you're in is a snake pit. Further the snakes are starting to eat each other. The era of the Imperial Republic and Washington is ending. It's not a pretty sight or a graceful ending. I'd suggest exfil/extract.
Now we may well not have a Republic when it's finally over...but if you think DC goes on like this...no. Fin. One way or another. A proper Empire would be an improvement. I suspect the Basileus will be called the Emergency Manager.....
Cool your jets Exum this is
Cool your jets Exum this is not about the integrity of the Army !!!!!
Have a good friend that was special forces in the 60's. Kennedy's color guard (he didn't think too much of him) and recruited Russian officers to defect in Yugoslavia at the time that each side was lining up tanks on the border. The Americans doing the recruiting got hung for display on the Russian side of the plowed and fenced border. Then he and a buddy went temporary duty to Vietnam just to see what it was about (actually it was the extra pay). Just to make sure he was prepared for Vietnam the Army sent him for Arctic training in Alaska.
Army may do some f*cked up things, integrity is not one of them.
One thing that was true, it is the politician that can not be trusted. Good example is putting DevGrp on parade after UBL, that is not even heard of except in Hollywood. DevGrp is tighter lipped than submariners.
The discussion is not about physical fitness, it is about completing the mission. The mission is the only thing that matters and is the reason that the military exists.
The military reports to civilians and as we have witnessed, Politicians can F*ckup a W*tdream.
I am not supporting a military state, just saying lets think about the future of America and make sure that we are doing the best thing rather than making a special interest group happy. The military gets ordered to accept a lot of BS and all it can do is take it on the chin.
Those are the layers of fixes and costs of the DOD budget.
PS...Don't take my comments as implying that women are inferior, they can do things that men can not even dream of like have babies (still takes the right two to get that mission done). It is the mission and only the mission, if they are up for it let them have fun. If they f*ck up, then let them know they might get left behind. We know that will never happen and here begins the discussion.
So which Politician wants to get the woman vote?
Nuff said.
I had the pleasure of
I had the pleasure of speaking with a woman who teaches at an all girls school about the efficacy of segregating the sexes when the big leagues of life are integrated. We discussed her institution's physical training program and I asked for her opinion on women in combat. She appeared to favor the idea for those pursuing gender equality in the armed services. While it's easy to imagine the need for women in combat, to my knowledge the performance of an integrated or gender segregated female special operations team is unknown at this time. In the interest of national security, the DOD should know the optimum offensive and defensive combat performance of women. It's not clear how anyone could know optimum performance of a demographic without observing such a team in action. Tuskegee Airmen come to mind...
I don't want to be the JAG
I don't want to be the JAG who gets picked to help draft the new guidelines for implementation of this. Take one simple issue, for example. If women are allowed into the winter phase of Ranger School, then we'll need to clarify and brief the do's and do not's of spooning and bobsledding.
Do you think that male coast
Do you think that male coast guardsmen aren't fit to serve unless they can pass the female standard for the sit and reach? Because if we have to throw out the dudes out who can't do the sit and reach up to the ladies' standard and the chicks who can't do everything else up to the dudes' standard we are going to run out of coast guard.
It's pretty obvious that the vast majority of physical fitness standards in the military were not designed based on a rational attempt to articulate the minimum physical ability needed to accomplish the mission, they were designed based on the need to test for some minimum mix of athletic ability and physical training. That's why in most things it can make sense to have different standards for different genders and ages -- an athletic, fit 40 year old man cannot do what he could 20 years ago, but who cares? The point of the test is to see whether he is still athletic and fit.
It is also wrong to think that the ability to pass a physical standard somehow erases all differences in physical ability and assures you that everyone around you is equally capable -- if you feel supremely confident in the upper body strength of a dude who can only do six pull-ups, but s---t your pants in fear for the mission the moment you have to fight next to a guy who can only do five pull-ups, you are weird.
Which isn't to say that physical standards are meaningless, or that someone who can only do five pull ups could make it as a ranger . To be clear, I would never doubt Exum's assessment if he said that ranger school's physical fitness standards are an accurate measure of what it takes to accomplish the physical tasks demanded of Ranger qualified soldiers. He's been a ranger and I haven't, so he gets to win that argument. I just want to make sure that that *is* what he's saying. If Ranger School's physical fitness standards were designed around proving that men are mentally tough and fit enough to wear a ranger tab, not that men are capable of accomplishing certain physical tasks typically required of people with ranger tabs, it doesn't make any sense to defend the standards as inviolate when an equally fit and mentally tough woman will not be equally physically capable.
"While it's easy to imagine
"While it's easy to imagine the need for women in combat, to my knowledge the performance of an integrated or gender segregated female special operations team is unknown at this time"
We have these already, from CIA paramilitary to the US Army's Intelligence Support Activity (ISA, aka "grey fox"), where women excel. The Rangers, in mission and culture, are a very different kettle of fish.
Women joining SOF paramilitary intelligence units, excellent idea and implemented already, Women joining suicidal shock-action SOF unit with testosterone-poisoned culture in order to get promotion points, hmmmmmm.
Visitor on June 15, 2012 -
Visitor on June 15, 2012 - 9:30pm
While your doing your JAG duty making the best of the Progressive Ranger spooning policy.
Please make sure that you add a doping policy for male steroid use which should apply to both male and female ranks.
Since most of the comments
Since most of the comments are based on the fitness standards, perhaps it would be worth remembering where the APFT standards came from. IIRC, the modern APFT baseline standard (the 60pts in each event) for men was determined by taking a Ranger school class at the end of the school and running them through the test. The average score of the worn-out, weary, tired, chaffed ranger became the minimum passing standard. I'm curious as to how they got the women's standards.
There is a desperate need now, more than ever, to have junior leaders trained in small unit tactics and basic patroling. We need it across all MOS/branches. After 10 years of riding around in heavily armored trucks, our "basics" have decayed considerably.
@Visitor on June 15, 2012 - 9:54pm
I think you're on to something. I think it's also bigger than you suggest. We're being naive if we think that the military has not recognized the utility of women in SR/DA roles.
Will this improve the US
Will this improve the US military?
Personally, I couldn't care less if women can or cannot meet standards or if the standards are changed to allow them in. I'm a little more interested in the "why" of all this.
While I agree with Ex that there are certainly women out there who could meet the standards as are, I also agree that they are an incredibly small percentage of the population. And whether they would *want* to attend the School is another issue all together. So let's just say that out of 1,000 elligible women, 1 wants to attend and can pass Ranger School. What did this buy us? We have now added 1 woman to ranks of the Rangers...what do we do with her now?
Is she going to bunk with all of her male counterparts? Is she going to use the same latrines? Or are we going to have provide separate facilities for her? Or develop some sort of time share concept for the showers?
None of this is efficient. None of this contributes to the effectiveness of the unit. It may not (one could argue) be directly detrimental to the unit but then, neither is keeping women out of Ranger School. If it doesn't *improve* our capabilities to execute the mission, then why are we pushing for this?
Desegregating the military in the 50s did improve our efficiency. It allowed us to eliminate the waste of redundant barracks, latrines, dining facilities, etc. that had to be maintained for this policy. It also allowed us to draw from a much larger manpower pool in order to fill our ranks. Allowing women to go to Ranger School does none of this. At the very best it doesn't change anything. More likely, it will require a resource draw that we don't ever need but especially now.
So please, somebody, explain to me what benefit the military gets out of having women wearing the short tab?
All the rest of this discussion is a waste of time. The change either does or does not contribute to improved capability. If it does, then we can argue about what the standards really need to be in order to further that contribution.
BK -- well there is a
BK -- well there is a difference between wearing the tab and being a ranger. I think there's an argument that the benefit we get from having our best and brightest females serve as rangers would be outweighed by logistical problems, but ranger school is about leadership training for the entire army, not one regiment. There isn't much of an argument that, say, a male aviator can benefit from the training in ranger school when he gets back to his unit but a female aviator doing the same job couldn't. Then there's the obvious benefit to the military of extremely mentally tough and disciplined female soldiers getting to wear the tab as proof that they are extremely mentally tough and disciplined, which is a good thing to know about someone who is leading you or whom you command.
The actual standard is this
The actual standard is this is a political agenda from the Top - politicians and votes - to the Bottom - female career agendas.
So that means the only numbers that count are how many women have the Ranger Tab.
That's the standard.
That's the Mission.
And before that altar all else will be sacrificed.
Which Dr. Exum from his comments apparently knows, with foreboding, but he knows that's what will happen, just like it happened every time before.
Elf, The comment that I made
Elf,
The comment that I made up stream about not trusting politicians came from the guy that was Kennedy's color guard in the 60's. To put that discussion in context, it was about public opinion changing the direction of individuals in office to extend their careers (AKA, they speak with fork tongue). The military is too big an organization, controlled by a political office, to avoid the temptation to use the armed forces as an incubator for social change. Military has already been transformed from a fighting force to delivering foreign aid.
Iraq is over, Afghanistan is making gasping sounds, Syria is a gleam in someone's eye, and Africa is deep on the dark side of the budget. Latest rage is the Pacific and balancing the China threat. So where in all that do you get the need to change the mix the Ranger's ranks?
Recruitment should be based solely on the mission and operational needs. There is no one important MOS, all the people combined are critical to the mission.
What happened to downsizing the force after a ten year engagement. Exum is smoking rope.
Visitor my point - which I'm
Visitor my point - which I'm sure you understood - was that the mission of Ranger School will rapidly become getting females to Tab. It's wrong, but it will happen that way just as it played out that way every other instance.
I should disclose I never went to Ranger school, and am not hence a Ranger.
As regards Foreign Adventures...Let's bring back the Lincoln and Washington Brigades. They can have their own Zouave Amazons. Or better yet gender neutral Kommandos.
"Early in the U.S. Civil War, the most fervent advocates for battle actually formed military units. They were expected to lead in combat. It is a practice that should be resurrected."
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/lincoln-brigade-Syria-7054
I think if we could again get 2800 idealistic young R2P and humanitarian adventurers to prove how Ready 2 Protect they actually are, it would do wonders for our Foreign Policy and Social Engineering ventures for decades to come.
Consider that both Hemingway and Orwell fought in the Spanish Civil War for instance.
Elf, Lincoln Brigade? Think
Elf,
Lincoln Brigade? Think today we call them contractors, but they want the paycheck not the cause.
If you really wanted to put the kabosh on this women in the Army stuff bring back the draft with them included in combat duty roles. Give them equal opportunity in birthday bingo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p5X1FjyD_g&feature=related
Bobby, Excellent points. And
Bobby,
Excellent points. And I think that was something that Kilcullen missed in his originating article. His point was that women could serve at the Battalion level, in the staff, but not in front-line combat units. But wouldn't you want the folks higher up from you to actually understand why you are doing what you are doing? Sure the Bn staff isn't going to have the same level of SA as the guy going through the door or getting mortared in the field, but wouldn't it be nice if they had an understanding of small unit tactics? So I think your point is valid with regards to the benefits of the "tab" versus being a Ranger.
So I guess now would be a good time to take a flaming spear to the chest...let's talk about lowering of standards.
It would appear to me, a non-Ranger, straight leg type, that the physical fitness standards exist for two reasons. The first, as has been alluded to by other commentors, is that this level of fitness is demanded for by combat conditions. Okay, if that's the case, then why isn't it the standard across the board? Why doesn't every combat unit have to maintain these same standards? So they must be harder for a reason.
To some extent, I think it really is "hazing." Not in the "college frat boys picking up cherries with their butt cheeks" hazing but as Bobby noted above to demonstrate mental toughness. After all, isn't that the ponit of the Rangers, to carry on, to accomplish the mission at all costs? It appears, to an outsider, that the demanding standards of the Rangers is to demonstrate to the student that they always have a little more left in the tank. That they can always reach down deep inside and find just one more ounce of effort to push through the pain, the exhaustion, the fear, etc.
And if that's the case, does a female student really need to meet the levels of her male counterpart? Or does she just need to be pushed beyond her own limits? I'm not saying that it should be easy by any stretch of the imagination. The attritioin rate should still remain at 50% or whatever it currently is. And the minimums should be whatever is required for combat, the standard that *really* is across the board. And then amp that up a notch to make it seem damn near impossible...but not necessarily as "impossible" as the male standards.
Obviously the standards shouldn't be lowered to the point that any woman could pass the course but they don't necessarily have to be the same as the male standards either.
Elf, I think you're wrong
Elf, I think you're wrong about the "mission of Ranger School" changing to see how many women can get tabbed. That's ridiculous. When Mikie Hicks became the first woman to graduate the Sapper Leader Course (SLC), it didn't fundamentally change that school's primary purpose. In fact the numbers show that the standards haven't been (at least not significantly) as women have about a 1 in 3 chance of finishing the school while men have a 1 in 2 chance (and to caveat in the SLC finishing the school and tabbing are not the same--I believe about 50% of those that complete the course earn the tab). Admittedly, sapper school is significantly shorter than Ranger school but the stressors are similar--weights are comparable if not heavier in sapper school, distances are comparable, there's no 10-day FTX but the sleep deprivation and hunger are present throughout, and there's an added SERE phase. I just don't buy that the standards have to drop through the floor.
BK, as far as a military need: I'd argue that yes there absolutely is a need for women to attend patrolling and leadership schools. First the information gained in these schools is vital in modern combat. I've had female subordinate leaders that I've asked to lay in an ambush, in combat. I've had them conduct movements to contact. You cannot argue that it's safer for a leader to conduct these operations without practice. Why not give them the best education/training possible before sending them to conduct these missions?
Next, take a look at the engineer branch as an example. Engineers have a secondary mission to reorganize and fight as infantry. If we agree that infantry leaders need patrolling and leadership schools, by extension engineer leaders need patrolling and leadership schools. Women serve as combat engineers, therefore they need patrolling and leadership schools. Furthermore, sappers and combat engineers frequently conduct operations and missions embedded within infantry units. Back in the day, an engineer team would accompany an infantry platoon on every operation. They lived together, worked together, patrolled together. Infantry leaders expected those engineers to be able to think, communicate, and work just like infantrymen until they needed to conduct an engineer task. Again, cross-pollination through schooling is essential. I remember several years ago, sitting in on some discussions when the first female officer was offered a sapper platoon. She declined, but there have been others since then that have taken on the challenge. They need the same education and training that a male officer leading a sapper platoon needs.
Finally, let's talk about credibility. Years ago, I was slated to take what would have been my first platoon. A friend of mine wound up taking the platoon because he had a ranger tab and I didn't at the time. Showing up to a unit with a tab tells the commander (organic and/or supported maneuver commander) that you speak their language, that you've been trained to a baseline, that you're prepared to lead soldiers in combat conditions. Subordinates understand that a leader has done the task at hand before. That they're not learning on the job.
There's just no argument that there's a military necessity for leaders to have the opportunity to attend patrolling and leadership schools. To say otherwise is to deny how modern warfare is conducted. We've gone through a signficant evolution over the past 40 years, accelerated in the past 15 years.
If "Ranger" school is too touchy, then make it so that only those assigned to positions with an ASI are able to attend the school. Put those ASIs only in a handful of light infantry units for 11A/11Bs. Does 75RR even need Ranger school anymore, for the conduct of FE operations? If the answer still remains "yes" then code leadership positions in 75RR with that ASI so they're eligible for the school. Then create a patrolling and leadership school open to anybody that wants to attend the school and can meet entry requirements. Train leaders that wants to learn to patrol and lead in combat. But don't try to deny that there's a necessity for leaders that are capable of patrolling and leading. It looks ridiculous.
Visitor 5:58, You make a
Visitor 5:58,
You make a strong case and I hadn't considered the combat engineer angle as I had never met a female Sapper before. I am quite familiar with the notion of wearing your quals on your left shoulder and have even seen commanders stop a Soldier and turn him in order to see what tabs he was wearing. So your argument wrt to credibility are completely valid.
Sounds to me like there are a whole mess of reasons to let women into Ranger school that have nothing to do with them making rank.
Thanks for the education. I stand corrected.
Visitor on June 17, 2012 -
Visitor on June 17, 2012 - 5:58am
You disagree with Elf on pushing "how many women" get tab. It is a matter of semantics. If the military is told that females are inclusive they will have to live up to providing statistic that show that. The alternative is that they are being obstructive and a boys club. The Pentagon is a political organization and affirmative action is real.
Here is a real life story.
My brother-in-law and I took my soon to be Army medic niece to the gun range for pistol practice before packing her up for Afghanistan. Medics are allowed a sidearm but are really neutral in battle. Anyone in a battle zone can be an accidental Ranger. She had previous exposure to target practice. We went through the basics of marksmanship and worked with her as she engaged targets. Everything was hit but the target and I am not talking near misses. After processing through Fort Jackson and Fort Hood she was put in the Western Zone of Afghanistan. Through that process, her father told me that she qualified first time for military marksmanship. He was busting his buttons, I saw her shoot and could only question the qualification process. That was a couple years ago and now she is back in the US of A, her Afghanistan experience really did not change her and I was hoping that the experience would provide her with more direction and leadership skills. It is good that Army medics are neutral in battle and that my niece did well in her Medic training at Fort Hood, just goes to show that everyone can make an important contribution without being tabbed.
We have talked about physicals, menstrual cycles, yeast infections, and other requirements.
It is the mission that counts.
The US military exists to provide a mission. That mission has lost direction over the years, it should only be to protect the direct interests of the United States. The liberal left has given the US military a foreign aid mission and females fit perfectly in that role. The US military needs to get out of being a foreign aid department and the worlds cop, the last country that tried that (The British Emprire) got bailed out by the US in the lend lease programs of WW2.
Is the US protecting raw materials for corporate interests or defending US dirt? Trying not to offend Islamic females by having them interviewed by male soldiers (what do you think the end result is of Hillary Clinton preaching to Islam Shariah Law is wrong about women's rights) ? What is more important?
Only one question is meaningful.
What do females bring to the table that ensures the mission? Anything else is feel good politics to support special interests for campaign votes. How many females want the experience to justify the expense and how many will succeed. The military is not the only organization for females to change society.
Lets be real about it. The military mission is winding down and troop levels with it. What is going to happen next? Is Obama going to use executive order to kick males and straights out of the military to install his constituents? I have only been radicalized to create my own PAC because of how the current administration thumbs its nose at US law. One million Latinos coming out of high school will need medical and jobs ! Who is managing the economy?
I am not arguing against female or gays all I am doing thinking how it all fits into a healthy and growing US population that has an effective defense to keep that way. Silly things like jobs, GDP, and paying commitments to elderly baby boomers for paying into an social insurance program all their lives. All these micro social agendas are just ripping the fabric of US life when stability is what is needed to heal the economy. Lets fight about social issues after we put people back to work. The food stamp program has never been larger we really need to put Obama's image on food stamps then he can pass them out at elections as voting reminders.
BTW.... Your comment about the "tab" showing skill and learning on the job. Not sure that comment has merit. The Pentagon had no problem letting all the Generals (some Rangers) learn on the job. The rotation and game changes of the Commanders in Iraq and Iran stand in testimony.
Will MRE's now come with a
Will MRE's now come with a combat tampon? This is a bunch of horseshit. Women shouldn't be flying supersonic jets, driving subs or in elite units like Recon, Rangers and SEALS. OUR MILITARY SUCKS AND AS ELF SAID WE ARE OUT OF THE BUSINESS OF WINNING WARS. WE ARE WASHED UP!
I've have a photo of Dr. EXUM
I've have a photo of Dr. EXUM on a rugby field wrestling with a hooker. Copies real cheap.
Visitor on June 17, 2012 -
Visitor on June 17, 2012 - 12:32pm
Hookers are OK now since the Secret Service and Columbia. So is teen pot and coke for POTUS. Sec of State can tie one on at the Havana while shutting down our FP in SA. Not inhaling, BJ's in the WH from other than your wife then misleading the country about it, and shutting down an airport tarmac to get your hair cut all have precedent.
Spending money like you own the printing presses has been in style since the gold standard was booted.
The Pics of Exum are nothing, we already have him playing paint ball with Hezbollah !
Where you been Rip? We have a generational change going on. POTUS has spent so much time out of CONUS he thinks US private business is A-OK.
Think the yeast infection pills will be in the MRE's with the Vagisil. Does Vagisil treat jock itch? Dual use.
Our CEO told us all at the quarterly review to get ready for change, that was a year before I had to learn Chinese.
Think we got off subject.
Then create a patrolling and
Then create a patrolling and leadership school open to anybody that wants to attend the school and can meet entry requirements
We did this already but the Army killed it. In the days of Division schools, it was called Recondo. Feel free to google: 82nd Recondo. This is why the whole tab thing seems to be about promotion and not skills to us old-timers. If the Army feels that the basic Infantry curriculum adequately teaches these skills and thus could eliminate the Recondo courses that made "Ranger" training available to the masses, then this issue is not about skill transfer. It's about the politics and perceptions surrounding a scare badge.
Any person not awash in PC
Any person not awash in PC nonsense knows very well that even if a female candidate meets the minimum physical standards to enter Ranger school, she will likely falter at a far higher rate than a man unless the grading is also sex-normed. That's problematic because there are only a limited number of slots available. Every female admitted is taking a slot from a male candidate and if women aren't performing on the same bell curve as men, then males who would have succeeded in earning the tab are being replaced by female washouts at Fort Bragg.
Of course, we don't really have to worry about women washing out. Among other things, I guarantee no woman attending the school will be required to perform the minimum 6 pull-ups and run 5 miles in 40 minutes. (I mean, who are we kidding there?) Those standards will be sex-normed or else weakened substantially. The bar to graduate will be lowered or sex-normed. It's a huge insult to those who earned the tab over the last 60 years, but oblivious left-wing social experimentation must continue unabated.
The US Army has decided that it exists to punch tickets and promote diversity rather than fight wars. 2012 is likely the last year a Ranger tab will mean much of anything.
Add your comment