Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Women and the Rangers: Is the Experiment Worth It?
So I finished reading Marcus Luttrell’s Lone Survivor last night. Afterwards, I went online to look up the differences between the Navy Seals and Army Rangers. While googling Rangers, I came across this headline from just a couple of weeks ago: 19 Women washed out of Army Ranger School. That’s actually a good thing.
All 19 women who were allowed into Ranger school have failed to meet the standards necessary to become a Ranger. Now, the article points out that many men wash out of Ranger School. During the first four days, for example, 197 out of 381 men washed out along with 11 of the 19 women. The remaining 8 women continued to the next phase of Ranger school, but all washed out before getting to the leadership school’s mountain phase. Of these 8 women, 3 will be allowed to try again. (Many men who become Rangers washed out on their first attempt and then tried again.)
Gayle Lemmon, the article’s author, points out:
And now, they said, for the first time ever, women soldiers knew the standard from first-hand experience, so that the fittest and most committed could train to it with the knowledge that they could enter and potentially graduate from Ranger School.
I am glad that the Rangers applied the same standards to the women as the men (though, apparently, there are some already arguing that standards should be adjusted), and I do believe that a few super-Amazons might eventually pass the course. But I don’t think it’s worth the time and resources and possible complications of women soldiers serving in co-ed units to find those few wonder women.
I’m also old-fashioned, and dubious of the idea of women serving in any infantry combat positions, let alone elite special forces. I sympathize with the sentiment expressed by C.S. Lewis through the character of Father Christmas in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. After giving gifts to the Pevensie children, including a bow for Susan and a dagger for Lucy, he tells the girls they are only to use their weapons in great need and he does not intend for them to fight in the coming battle.
“Why, sir?” said Lucy. “I think – I don’t know but I think I could be brave enough.”
“That is not the point,” [Father Christmas] said. “But battles are ugly when women fight.”
Of course, all battles are ugly, but I feel society loses something when it deliberately puts women into close-quarters combat roles unless in greatest need.
What say you, Ricochetti? Is it a good thing that we are allowing women into Ranger school, provided the standards remain the same? Or is it just politically correct folly for the Army to be trying this experiment?
Published in General
The women haven’t fared well in the Marine IOC either.
The standards are the standards and should not be lowered.
IF enough women were to complete either, perhaps, perhaps, their own units (which would likely have to rotate out for a week or so each month) as long as they can use standard gear.
From the article I linked aboved: “Data from the experiment will be compiled and analyzed. Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Joseph Dunford will use the analysis to issue a recommendation to Defense Secretary Ashton Carter on how the Corps intends to open up certain combat-arms jobs to women in 2016.”
I hope that answer is, “If they can meet the standards, pass the course and not expect special treatment. . .”
Thank you so much for this post. I agree with you: there might be a few women who could make it in the rangers, but it’s not worth it. Military nurses and other female support personnel have been risking their lives and in some cases dying for our country from the beginning; women don’t have to serve in direct combat missions in order to prove that they are brave, or in order to serve their country.
If I thought that this whole experiment would be limited to a few exceptional women, I wouldn’t be so concerned. But feminists will not stop until standards have been lowered so that most women who will never really be qualified for combat missions can “qualify” for combat missions. This puts both the unqualified women and the men who have to serve alongside them in unnecessary danger. And if it is “proven” that most women can serve in combat, then why shouldn’t women be drafted? Many polls show that a majority of Americans support drafting women; it’s highly unlikely that a draft will return anytime soon, but who knows what will happen 50 or 100 years from now? I probably won’t be around to see what happens when women are drafted into combat positions, and I am glad of that.
Is it a good thing that we are allowing women into Ranger school, provided the standards remain the same?
I think it’s useful to let them try. As an L/C I once worked for in a Test Squadron said, “Never pass up a chance to collect data.”
Personally, I also think that anyone who’s capable of working the equipment and sending accurate fire down range should be expected to join the fight and do so.
However.
There are a couple of caveats. One is who is the enemy being fought? I’ve seen anecdotal reports that Daesh have actively avoided battle with Peshmerga units that were composed of, or had, women soldiers: the Daesh did not want to die at the hands of a woman; that would prevent them from entering heaven.
On the other hand, I’ve also seen anecdotal reports that in the last Arab-Israeli war, when Egyptian units got back into Sinai and encountered Israeli units with women soldiers, the Egyptians fought more stubbornly: they didn’t want the humiliation of losing to a woman. This, of course, ran up friendly casualties as well as enemy ones.
The other caveat is this: I’ve also seen (tiresomely anecdotal, again, this time because I can’t find the reference) a report that it might not be cost effective to have women in at least some of the combat arms, especially ground combat, because their later-year medical costs make it not cost effective: the female body isn’t designed to carry the weight of ground combat equipment over the distances and for the durations required, and the wear and tear accumulates faster and more deeply in women than in men. That study has not been replicated, as far as I know.
On the other hand, I know empirically that women make fine fighter pilots. The g forces are better spread across their bodies compared to humping ground combat equipment, the loading doesn’t last nearly as long (a few seconds to a bit over a minute at a time), and even in a high-tempo air combat environment, there’s a period of physical rest between sorties. It seems that lots of shipboard combat duties would be possible, too, though here I plead a general ignorance.
So: collect the data, and see how things play out.
Eric Hines
One of the three remaining women ( before they washed out) was my son’s classmate at his military college. She played rugby and is more man than most men according to him. His opinion is that if the standards aren’t lowered then he doesn’t care. The course does not mean you’ll be a combat person but is frequently used by officers who go on to other area. He will be doing this in two years and he better be ready by then because as good a shape as he’s in now. I bet he’d wash out. You need to be a darn stud.
I don’t have a problem with women being fighter pilots. If they’ve performed just as well as men, let them fly and rain fire from heaven onto our enemies.
Apparently, the Navy did lower the standards (and no I don’t have a source to quote). It’s not like the jets have power steering (well, maybe the F-35
willdoes).It’s all part and parcel to Utopian thinking in which no differences exist, including physiologically. There’s also a psychological component that has cropped up in one particular Navy situation while attempting to integrate women on submarines. Now that they are opening it up to line officers some women have balked at the duties required of weapons/assistant-weapons officers on the missile boats. When performing work inside missiles it is often necessary (for reasons of safety/security) for the two people working together to have their hands on each other and at times even lay on top of each other. Some of the sailors I work with (all missile technicians) have reported anecdotes of female officers flat out refusing to do this part of the job because it makes them uncomfortable. Well, no [expletive] it’s uncomfortable. It’s no less uncomfortable for two young men to accomplish the tasks, but we do.
This raises the specter the Navy (and probably other services) have been dealing with over gender integration: women physically incapable or outright refusing to perform certain tasks and forcing their shipmates to take up their slack. Of course, no one dares to make a stink about it because equality. Special forces are just a much more visible example of what’s already going on across the services.
This whole issue reminds me of Attorney General Janet Reno’s expenditure of more than a million dollars of the public fisc to force Hooters’ Restaurants to hire male waiters.
The market does better the things which government tries and fails to accomplish.
The standards have been lowered for basic training for females.
Two opposing armies, equal in every respect with all the same tactical advantages and disadvantages except that one army consists 50% of women. The one with women is weaker. Case closed. Unless of course your purpose is something other than the well being and effectiveness of the military.
Do you think that’s possible given the anti-science ideology of the current administration?
Whether it’s elite units like Army Ranger, Navy SEAL, Marine Recon, or even “regular” combat MOS like infantry, cavalry scout, artillery, combat engineer. There is not the remotest possibility that standards will remain the same. If I’m not mistaken, the heads of branches are or will be required to demonstrate that the standards have to be what they are if they screen out women.
The standards will be lowered until the units contain the requisite percentage of women. This is what happened with firefighters.
There will be no basis for not drafting women and placing them into combat MOS
A unit is only as strong as its weakest link and that link will almost certainly be the woman (yes, I can hear the shrieks now but read this , this and this before you go non-COC compliant on me). Critical missions will fail because of this.
I’m not opposed to women serving in the military. My daughter was an Army communications technician (25-P). She happens to agree with me.
That’s a separate question. Lots of minds are well closed and made up on both sides of the question of whether women can function in combat, so it is iffy regarding the use to which the data will be put.
Eric Hines
Put women in tanks and other cramped armor.
Are there any groups dedicated to opposing women in combat? The only person I am aware of who really speaks out on this is Elaine Donnelly; she posts several articles a year on her website, but that doesn’t seem to have much or any affect. There was also a general who wrote a book opposing women in combat, but his voice seems to have been lost in the wilderness too.
It seems to me that this is the most important issue of our time; our children’s lives and the lives of future generations quite literally depend on the decisions we make about this now, but most people, including many conservatives, just don’t seem to be interested. Or, they think it’s no big deal. I like to think that I am usually pretty good at understanding those who disagree with me; for instance, I am pro-life, but I find it very easy to understand why someone would be pro-choice. But when it comes to women in combat, I just don’t get it. How can people think that lowering standards won’t hurt our young men and women on the battlefield? How can people think that this is no big deal?
Nick Stuart, you are correct: The standards will be lowered.
Why don’t we ask how much this is going to cost?
My understanding is that the Navy spent a damn fortune in order to incorporate women into the Service, the retrofitting was significant. What doors are we opening with this decision?
I’m a little surprised that officers are physically working on missiles. Usually that kind of grunt labor is “reserved” for enlisted. Perhaps that’s a part of qualifying for their position, and not a part of their regular duties.
But this discussion started out discussing women in Ranger School, and by extension infantry combat. I’ve never been in the infantry or other kind of ground combat unit (I was a Coastie), but I’ve read With the Old Breed: At Peleliu and Okinawa by E.B. Sledge, a Marine, as well as other everyman accounts of being a soldier in combat, though his is probably the best.
He made a point of describing how physically close he and his comrades were required to be, whether in training or in combat. There were times that they simply had to be whether taking cover from enemy fire in a hole too small, or just being transported from one area to another in crowded troop transports.
He also talked about the stink of battle, not just because of the corpses (fresh corpses stink too) but because he and his fellow marines went for weeks without bathing or even taking off their boots at night (which could be fatal). He talks about the sores he would get because he and his fellow marines didn’t have access to basic hygiene while on the battlefield. From other accounts I’ve read, this is still typical for today’s soldiers and marines on the battlefield and in training.
The average man doesn’t want to put up with this, and the average woman considerably less so. And call me old fashioned, but I think that females have more of a propensity towards cleanliness than males for some real biological reasons, and the lack of hygiene on the battlefield negatively impacts females more than males.
So women getting uncomfortable about closeness in a submarine? Well, might I suggest all women crews, if this is so important for women to do.
As far as I know, they always have been.
Some of the girls in my dorm, sophomore year in college, used to play volleyball with a unit from Ft. Leavenworth made up of nearly all guys and a couple of “tough-as-nails” women.
That summer, I was talking to my dad (Col. in the reserves) about women in the military. “Well, I met some women on the fort – they’re serving alongside guys so obviously they all had the same training, right? I mean, they wouldn’t be there if they hadn’t all qualified.”
Dad didn’t say a word – just pulled a manual out of his desk, flipped to the requirements: first to enter, then pass, Basic Training and handed it to me. Two different sets of PT qualifications, Male/Female.
My first question: “How is THAT even right?”
My second question: “Why has there been no class action lawsuit over this?”
If I were a guy who really wanted to be in the military and I “washed out” with scores that were well above those of the females who got in, but just below the standard for guys to get in, I’d be furious. Same thing goes for the FDNY.
If the lower standard’s truly good enough for your average grunt in any highly physical job, then it’s good enough for all comers. Lower it for everybody. Then keep the higher standard – again, the same standard, for ALL applicants – in place for more elite forces.
Sure, less women – – and in some units, possibly no women, will make the higher grade. Too bad. A lot of good men haven’t made it either. Those that do make it in deserve to go forward with the confidence that everyone they’re serving with has met the exact same rigorous qualifications that they did.
Speaking from my experience and observations as a Marine Infantry Officer and former platoon and company commander; integrating women into combat units will undoubtedly reduce overall unit effectiveness. The debate should not be about whether women can meet the standards, or whether the standards are “gender neutral”, but whether integrating women will raise or lower the average of the units they are assigned to. The last thing I wanted as a company commander was a Marine who merely met the minimum standards.
My opinion is no. They can’t make the cut, and frankly I don’t support women in combat either.
Not only that, but what about dealing with the sexual dynamics? When you put men and women in close company you start interfering with the normal bonds between soldiers.
When I see videos like this woman earning her EFMB (Expert Field Medical Badge), I think that women should be able to serve. And from the looks of it, her fellow soldiers wanted her to succeed. The standards weren’t different for her. The day she attempted it, the failure rate was 80%. And this from army.mil:
Tyrtaeus, for some reason the quote function isn’t working for me. But you’re absolutely right that the debate should only be focused on what will increase or decrease unit effectiveness. You read the comments on these news stories and you’ll see that most people get this. But political correctness has made it so our leaders and those in charge of the military will no longer honestly talk about this.
Manny:
Absolutely. I’m no psychologist, but I think any man would agree that the group dynamics of men changes when a woman is present. My own anecdotal experiences back this up in the military. Men start getting distracted by how they are perceived by women, and naturally become competitive for their attentions. I could go on all day about this, but suffice it to say that adding women into the mix will not improve unit cohesion, and I find it doubtful that it would not change it.
Knotwise, I will refrain from making disparaging statements about my political leaders, but I will say that some in military leadership seem to be acting rationally, even under ideological pressure. The Marine Corps seems to be delaying the implementation of integration as long as possible to conduct in-depth studies. My impression is that this implies that they are not completely on board with the policy that DoD has made.
Might as well remove the standards entirely. It is not like our military is going to allow ROE that require manliness anyway.
A little background – In the 2009 National Defense Authorization Act, Congress chartered the “Military Leadership Diversity Commission” expressly “to conduct a comprehensive evaluation and assessment of policies that provide opportunities for the promotion and advancement of minority members of the Armed Forces.” This commission issued their report in 2011, finding that the existing promotion system was “fair.” Nonetheless, the commission issued 20 recommendations of which almost all of the “barrier analysis” recommendations addressed gender-based restrictions on assignments, not race or ethnicity.
In 2012, the DoD published a study asserting that 26,000 military women had been sexually assaulted that fiscal year. Although the methodology of the survey was later disavowed by the originators, that survey along with a contemporaneous propaganda movie, “The Invisible War”, combined to create a frenzy of effort to address this “epidemic.” Similar to the post-Tailhook years, the pendulum swings such that Senior Service Leaders cannot oppose these experiments and expect to remain in their positions. Resignations would not change the momentum on this.
My background was the Air Force. In 1985 it was inconceivable to any of us that a woman could be bomber aircrew. By the early 1990s, it was not only conceived but had gone full term to delivery. By 2015, I can barely recall the fuss. But, that’s the flying Air Force. The really only issue for us was the occasional boy-girl distraction thing that, among other issues, has been known to bring down Generals and to destroy empires.