Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Stephen Kilcullen: Women Don't Belong in Ranger School
WSJ ^ | 6-13-12 | STEPHEN KILCULLEN

Posted on 06/13/2012 4:27:11 AM PDT by TurboZamboni

Competition to attend the course is fierce, with about 4,000 men eligible to attend each year. Only about half graduate. Of those, only 20% make it through without having to retake various phases. For decades, completion of Ranger School has been the best indicator for determining which young men can handle the enormous responsibility of combat leadership.

(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: army; ranger; women
Unless and until women have to pass the same PT test and are subject to the same Selective Service registration(The Draft), what's the point?
1 posted on 06/13/2012 4:27:21 AM PDT by TurboZamboni
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni

I agree.


2 posted on 06/13/2012 4:35:47 AM PDT by EmilyGeiger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni

It’s already been decided. The ‘study’ is the usual exercise designed to paper-over the double-standard.


3 posted on 06/13/2012 4:39:08 AM PDT by Tallguy (It's all 'Fun and Games' until somebody loses an eye!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni

“does it improve or hinder our ability to execute our mission?”

Congress doesn’t care about “mission”!


4 posted on 06/13/2012 4:47:11 AM PDT by G Larry (Criminals thrive on the indulgence of society's understanding)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni
I have to ask here the same question I ask about women on submarines...

To ANYONE who thinks this is a good idea, how does the inclusion of women to any front line combat forces INCREASE warfighting readiness and capabilities????

It's actually a rhetorical question, women don't add anything. In fact, women in these areas hurt the cause. The ONLY reasons this is being foisted on the military is political correctness, and the deliberate denigration of our US armed forces.

5 posted on 06/13/2012 4:51:38 AM PDT by rottndog (Political Correctness KILLS...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rottndog

As Clint Eastwood, as dirty harry in the enforcer, uttered during an applicant for detective board: What do you think this is, some kind of encounter group.

I guess the answer has been delayed a few years as it is obviously YES now.


6 posted on 06/13/2012 5:05:19 AM PDT by Mouton (Voting is an opiate of the electorate. Nothing changes no matter who wins..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rottndog

You must not have seen “GI Jane”./sarc


7 posted on 06/13/2012 5:17:07 AM PDT by Beagle8U (Free Republic -- One stop shopping ....... It's the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni
The only time I can envision women being on the front line is when the country is being invaded. In Israel, it makes sense that their women can be soldiers, as they are on the defensive, and all countries around them want them dead. For us, it is all PC crap.

As a father of two girls, I would strongly urge them not to join the military, even in non-combat positions. Look at Jessica Lynch. Why did we as a country put her into that position?

8 posted on 06/13/2012 5:17:54 AM PDT by kosciusko51 (Enough of "Who is John Galt?" Who is Patrick Henry?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni

The only girl I’d like to see try out Ranger School is named Barack Obama


9 posted on 06/13/2012 5:22:02 AM PDT by paterfamilias
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni

What’s the point? PC-uber-alles is the point.

The military is no longer primarily about defending the country.

It’s about forcing PC social change down our throats.


10 posted on 06/13/2012 5:35:57 AM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

I agree. It’s another Obama “green” jobs program.


11 posted on 06/13/2012 5:44:28 AM PDT by TurboZamboni (Looting the future to bribe the present)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni

This woman agrees. Police and fire departments should also have identical requirements for the two sexes.


12 posted on 06/13/2012 5:48:14 AM PDT by Bigg Red (Pray for our republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rottndog

The ONLY reasons this is being foisted on the military is political correctness, and the deliberate denigration of our US armed forces.

***
Bingo!


13 posted on 06/13/2012 5:49:35 AM PDT by Bigg Red (Pray for our republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni

There are some jobs in the military where it doesn’t matter about the strength and the being female. I was a female JAG, the first one at my active duty post. I was successful trying cases.

I can see that female doctors, layers, nurses, supply folks, administrative folks can help free up men for engineers, transportation, infantry, armored cav, MP, etc. Do I think women should be in combat? well, if they pass the SAME tests and meet the SAME standards, then a truism in the military, that all individuals are/should be interchangeable is carried forward. But changing the standards, no.


14 posted on 06/13/2012 6:04:50 AM PDT by yldstrk ( My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51

If the standards are set, and all pass them, with them being rigorous, and not ‘fixed’ for ‘the fairer sex’, then it doesn’t matter who goes.

I remember, in the Air Force, starting in 1974, the ‘Human Relations’ mandatory attendance week-long classes. “So that we could all get along, and do our jobs.” ha-ha-ha! It did not include ‘the fairer sex’ equality training, yet.

I am becoming glad to have reached the age, where anyone pontificating the honors and blessings of a PC nature, would receive a hearty and meaningful “BLESSUM YOU!”, for I grew up before that time of indoctrination.


15 posted on 06/13/2012 6:17:13 AM PDT by Terry L Smith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk

How about romantic feelings between troops affecting combat decisions? Also one more reason homosexuals should be nowhere near a combat situation.


16 posted on 06/13/2012 6:22:29 AM PDT by bramps (Newt was the one, but Romney will do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni

Not sure I understand this person point?
If the training course is so hard then no woman will make it right?
Oh but what if they do?
Well then I would serve with them!
Patriotism, honor, duty, courage are not the sole property of males..


17 posted on 06/13/2012 6:26:32 AM PDT by SECURE AMERICA (Where can I sign up for the New American Revolution and the Crusades 2012?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bramps

yeah, that’s bad. How does the Israeli military handle it? I wouldn’t want to make some of those gals mad.


18 posted on 06/13/2012 6:29:00 AM PDT by yldstrk ( My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SECURE AMERICA

I agree. If female candidates can pass exactly the same tests and are held to exactly the same standards, then they should be allowed to serve in whatever capacity they’ve earned.

That said, I highly doubt that any female who could pass Ranger training would be one I would classify as “desireable,” or even “female” in any but the strictest biological sense.


19 posted on 06/13/2012 6:32:33 AM PDT by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni

> Only about half graduate.

My opinion of Ranger School training has been diminished. I thought that only 1 in 8 or 10 made it through, like the SWCCs or SEALs.

If a woman can make it through an elite military training course, then she deserves to be there. If, on the other hand, they have to lower the requirements, then she only endangers the safety of the others that she serves with.

We have elite forces for a reason and our enemies are brutal and unforgiving. To allow diminished requirements for our elite forces only serves to make them less elite and less likely to prevail in a conflict.


20 posted on 06/13/2012 6:36:21 AM PDT by BuffaloJack (End the racist, anti-capitalist Obama War On Freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Terry L Smith

Maybe I am chauvinist or chivalrous, but I believe that it is the duty of men to defend one’s nation and family. I also believe that there are differences between men and women that standards of performance do not measure.


21 posted on 06/13/2012 6:37:40 AM PDT by kosciusko51 (Enough of "Who is John Galt?" Who is Patrick Henry?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni; Lancey Howard; jazusamo; Girlene; onyx; betty boop; P-Marlowe; smoothsailing

I don’t give a crap about career progression for females or males.

I don’t care about the traditions of infantry, armor, or artillery.

I could care less about the Ranger ethos.

I care about winning the wars that confront and will confront the United States of America.

Period.

In my many years in the Army, I ran into some really fine female officers, warrants, nco’s, and junior enlisted. I mean they were exceptional in many ways.

However, and this includes the most athletic female officer I ever met, a young woman at a major military school, they weren’t able to hang physically with the same standards as the guys. What this means is that you can go ahead and drop her to capture an airfield in enemy territory, but you better pray she never has to do in-close combat or haul or lift anything heavy. She would fail her troops and she would probably die.

And you better not load her down with as much gear and ammo as the other rangers carry.

If the issue is winning wars, then decisions should be based on what enhances chances of battlefield success.


22 posted on 06/13/2012 6:41:12 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni

My son is a brand new Ranger. He completed the first phase, now called RASP (Ranger Assessment and Selection Program), which lasted 8 weeks. By the way, if that sounds weird to anyone, the army changed RIP to RASP recently. He now needs to deploy and then go through the Ranger school fondly referred to as “62 days of hell” to complete the program and get his Ranger “tab”. He is hoping to get there as fast as possible before they monkey with the program and lower the bar. He wants to be a “real” Ranger. Does that attitude tell you something about how soldiers feel about the new proposal and what they think will happen once women are let in?


23 posted on 06/13/2012 6:43:49 AM PDT by jdsteel (Give me freedom, not more government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rottndog
"The ONLY reasons this is being foisted on the military is political correctness, and the deliberate denigration of our US armed forces."

I couldn't have said it better.

24 posted on 06/13/2012 7:12:15 AM PDT by davisfh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BuffaloJack

If a woman can make it through an elite military training course, then she deserves to be there. If, on the other hand, they have to lower the requirements, then she only endangers the safety of the others that she serves with.


How about if she and her commanding officer begin a romantic relationship? Think it will affect his decisions? And consequently affect the welfare of the other soldiers? What’s the solution? Just never begin down that road. The same goes for homosexuals in combat roles.


25 posted on 06/13/2012 7:23:51 AM PDT by bramps (Newt was the one, but Romney will do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni

I had AIT with women soldiers back in the 80’s and it was causing problems even then. One of them started an affair with one of the Sgts and the Sgt got booted out with career ruined. Nothing happened to her.


26 posted on 06/13/2012 7:27:28 AM PDT by Hacksaw (If I had a son, he'd look like George Zimmerman.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni

Appropriate re-post from a close friend of mine, a true American patriot and warrior (touches on women in combat).

Remembering D-Day, June 6, 1944

When in 1998 I saw the movie Saving Private Ryan, it moved me to tears. Since I was born in 1935, I was only a kid during World War II, but not so young that I didn’t realize what was going on. Growing up during that era forever left me with an abiding admiration for a generation of Americans who not only endured the Great Depression, but also unflinchingly stepped forward to do their duty when our country called.

As a young United States Air Force officer I was stationed in France only a few hours driving time from the beaches at Normandy. Early on a June morning in 1961, I drove to the site where seventeen years earlier the Allied Forces of Operation Overlord had landed. As the sun rose over Omaha Beach, the hair on the back of my neck literally stood on end as I gazed in awe at the utterly devastating field-of-fire commanded from a crumbling German bunker. Some nineteen years later, I would experience this same profound sensation as I stood atop the hill, Little Round Top, at the Gettysburg Battlefield in Pennsylvania.

Later in 1962, while flying along the Normandy coast at low altitude, I was presenting what I thought to be a noteworthy historical tour to my navigator, a major who looked “pretty old” to me. Flying west from the British and Canadian beaches of Sword, Juno and Gold, I pointed out a 100 foot cliff named Pointe du Hoc that lay between the American beaches of Omaha and Utah. After describing the remarkable D-Day assault up its near vertical face by U.S. Army Rangers, I said something to the effect, “Can you imagine how tough that must have been?” My navigator replied, “Yes, I can”, then simply added, “On June 6, 1944 I was nineteen years old. I was a private in the 2nd Ranger Battalion, and I went over the top.” Realizing that the man with whom I now flew was one of only ninety Rangers who survived the hand-over-hand climb up the shear rock face, my historical rhetoric suddenly seemed pitifully inadequate… while my navigator no longer seemed old, but somehow about two feet taller.

Only the men who were on those beaches over a half-century ago are truly qualified to comment on the authenticity of the movie. Those with whom I have spoken say that it is pretty damn close. It is a film without joy that bluntly depicts the documented horrors of a single nine-day period of combat as it really happened. If nothing else, perhaps it will help to dissuade the utterly silly notion that women should be placed in combat.

I was openly touched by this movie not only because of the profound sadness of the situations portrayed, but also because of a nostalgic remembrance of a time when duty, honor and country came first. When dodging the draft was a disgrace, character was a cherished virtue, and individuals took personal responsibility for their actions.

If you never thanked a WW II veteran for what they did, now might be a good time. There are still a lot of them among us, but they are a dying breed, and when they’re gone America will be a lesser place. We shall not likely see their likes again.


27 posted on 06/13/2012 8:25:47 AM PDT by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rottndog
Spot on!

Well stated.

Men and women are not the same; they don't think, act or emote the same. All this nonsense about “same” physical standards is nonsense. What matters is the innate aggression that resides in males (testosterone).

Media and other “equal rights” advocates mock it as chest-thumping behavior and they don't recognize it as warrior behavior. Women can be mean but true aggression is lacking, and after a career in the military I am tired of the empty argument that say, "well, if they can meet the same physical standards. . .". That is NOT the most important aspect. Natural agression is.

Women in the military ACT like they are all hoorah and aggressive but acting is not being. It is an act.

The feminine side is always repressed and hidden in warrior environments, therefore females deny their own femininity when they enter the warrior world. That is not natural.

28 posted on 06/13/2012 8:42:08 AM PDT by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Hulka

Born the same year. Only served in the Guard for 8 years. Was discharged before the Berlin situation. However, you are right on. Had relatives who served in Anzio, June 6, 1944 and one who was a guard at the Nueremburg Trials. Their stories, if you could ever pry it out of them were devastating. The difference between then and now is the tremendous amount of respect that was held for Women as compared to today when they are pictured as deprived of opportunity. All negative.


29 posted on 06/13/2012 9:30:21 AM PDT by bramps (Newt was the one, but Romney will do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: jdsteel

I thank him for his service to our country.

You must be commended for raising such a fine son.


30 posted on 06/13/2012 9:59:41 AM PDT by jch10 (Will vote for Romney...will not like it...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

” The military is no longer primarily about defending the country.

It’s about forcing PC social change down our throats.”

Exactly.


31 posted on 06/13/2012 11:11:14 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni
Unless and until women have to pass the same PT test and are subject to the same Selective Service registration(The Draft), what's the point?

************************

It's all a part of the liberal/communist/marxist agenda that is affecting (poisoning) every part of our lives today.


"So if there's one message I want to send to parents today, it's this: we have a voice. We have a voice.

And when we come together and use that voice, we can change the way companies do business.

We can change the way Congress makes laws.

We can transform our schools and our neighborhoods and our cities."

~Michelle Obama


32 posted on 06/13/2012 11:20:43 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdsteel

too bad he didn’t get in back when they wore black berets and not everyone got to wear a beret.

better now than later. at this rate, he could end up with a chick as his platoon leader.


33 posted on 06/13/2012 12:05:41 PM PDT by TurboZamboni (Looting the future to bribe the present)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: IronJack

still wouldn’t matter to me. until they have to sign up for the draft, they’re just playing war.

count the body bags and tell me they’re “equal”. then we can have an apples to apples comparison rather than apples to kotex.


34 posted on 06/13/2012 12:08:59 PM PDT by TurboZamboni (Looting the future to bribe the present)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: jch10

Thank you, I AM very proud.


35 posted on 06/14/2012 5:04:23 AM PDT by jdsteel (Give me freedom, not more government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni

He just got his black beret last week.


36 posted on 06/14/2012 5:05:41 AM PDT by jdsteel (Give me freedom, not more government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: jdsteel

Congrats to him.

I hope he soon gets a new Commander in Chief.


37 posted on 06/14/2012 5:22:36 AM PDT by TurboZamboni (Looting the future to bribe the present)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni

There is no draft. And yes, if women want true equality of opportunity in the military, they should have to register with the Selective Service.


38 posted on 06/14/2012 6:02:46 AM PDT by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni

THAT MAKES 3 OF US!!!!


39 posted on 06/14/2012 6:33:59 AM PDT by jdsteel (Give me freedom, not more government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: jdsteel

OOPS! He got his TAN beret last week. They give everyone a black beret these days. The Airbourne gets maroon and Rangers get tan.


40 posted on 06/14/2012 4:56:57 PM PDT by jdsteel (Give me freedom, not more government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Have you heard from your peers still on active duty how the sodomy indoctrination process is going?


41 posted on 07/29/2012 10:18:42 AM PDT by MSF BU (n)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: MSF BU

It is being resisted by being ignored for the most part.


42 posted on 07/30/2012 5:33:36 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: xzins

..you can only ‘ignore’ this stuff for so long. The day care centers and bastard child battalions didn’t appear immediately after the abolition of the WACS and WAVES; they’re here in force now.


43 posted on 07/30/2012 1:26:25 PM PDT by MSF BU (n)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson