Wednesday, June 20, 2012

WOMEN in COMBAT ARMS

This was inevitable - the Department of the Army is seriously considering allowing women to attend Ranger School.





Anybody who has ever attended that hellhole will know this is beyond a bad idea, this is insane.

The hero named Grim over at BlackFive has a great analysis of this PC-gone crazy:

A better argument: women are structurally at least four times as likely to be seriously injured in this kind of intense physical training, and possibly -- if the British army's experience is telling -- as much as eight times as likely.
This leaves three options for implementation, all of them bad.


1) Hold the line. Qualified women attend at full speed. Through no fault of their own, but simply due to the physics of body construction, we lose some of the best female soldiers in the Army to career-ending injuries; and/or we lose years of their careers to recuperation. This attains the stated end -- women who survive and get the tab will be due much respect -- but at a very high cost to the force, and the country.

2) Make another line. Men continue to attend at full speed. A second track for women, with a lighter physical load, is developed. Women with Ranger tabs end up the butt of jokes instead of getting the intended respect, because everybody knows they got the tab for less effort. This fails to attain the stated purpose of the reform, as the Ranger tab won't get the women any respect. This also severely damages the Ranger ethos, by making some Rangers more equal than others. A two-track elite is not an elite; only the top of the two tracks is the elite.

3) Abandon the line. Move the physical standards back to levels women can complete without sustaining the kinds of disabling injuries associated with the current physical fitness standards. This fails to attain the stated end, and actually achieves what Killcullen is worried about: it destroys the ethos associated with the Rangers.





SNAFU!'s take on it HERE - a synopsis:

If women are allowed to serve in the Infantry...or go to Ranger School then you're going to have to lower the standards. There is no if's and's or but's about it.

If you don't lower the standards then you're going to lose some outstanding individuals that could have served admirably in another career field.

If you make it a two track system where standards for women are different from men then you have just solidified them as second class warriors.

Men had to do more and be better to get to the same place.






"War is simple, direct and ruthless," - General George S. Patton


There has been a creeping incrementalism going on for over a decade - the whole women in the Combat Arms thing. This is nothing more than an extention of the old Women's Lib movement from the 70's; i.e. Political Correctness taken to the extreme. It's telling that the impetus to include women in Ranger training and Combat Arms units is the same issue used to justify women in command slots in the Navy - to allow them to compete more equally for promotions against their male counterparts. Excuse me; isn't the purpose of the U.S. military - or any military organization - to defend the nation? This kind of civilian human resource thinking deters from the mission; to crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the cries and lamentations of their women?


Soldiering is hard, punishing work. Marching endless miles taxes the body; day into night, burdened by weapons and equipment up to 50% of your body weight; tired, hungry, thirsty, fed upon by insects and parasites. Infantry training leaves permanent injury. We are not talking about a sporting event, where training involves proper rest; Infantry and Special Forces operations push soldiers to the breaking limit through extreme infiltration techniques, lack of sleep, hunger, and then demand performance at complex, physically demanding, team-oriented tasks involving marching, digging, carrying and using heavy weapons, explosives and other dangerous equipment; ideally under cover of darkness and in the worst weather conditions.

The Combat Arms requires physical strength, strength of character, personal drive and motivation. A chain is as strong as it's weakest link and men are stronger than women by a significant margin.

There is another aspect; it is totally politically incorrect for me to point this out, but it is so. There is something of a male sanctuary to the Infantry squad or platoon, or Special Forces team. This is Male Territory; the girls are not invited. Women are creatures of emotion, they are catty and they "need to talk" - a common phrase amongst women. (The average woman uses 20,000 words a day, men only 7,000. I'd go out on a limb; most of the men I know and work with get away with less than that - a LOT less.) To insert women into the unique dynamic of the squad, platoon or team will be disastrous; nothing good will come of this.

To include women into Ranger training is beyond folly - it is The Emperor's New Clothes.

"That's my story and I'm sticking to it."


- STORMBRINGER SENDS




11 comments:

  1. What is the Israeli experience with women as elite soldiers? I know that everyone goes through IDF training but do women end up in the elite commando units?

    Regarding the weight of kit that the Rangers and SF troopies carry, if the average male soldier at 180lbs is carrying 50% their weight it is 90lbs, which would be 75% of the weight of a 120lb woman. That is a backbreaking load. To reduce a woman's load to 50% would necessitate leaving 30lbs of equipment behind.

    Al_in_Ottawa

    ReplyDelete
  2. Depends on what your military wants to do - teach ethics or win wars.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What idiocy masquerading as "inclusion"!

    And our enemies probably laugh themselves hypoxic at this possibility.

    I'm reminded of the scene in "Heaven Can Wait" where the then L.A. Rams gave millionaire owner Warren Beatty's character an abbreviated and bone-crushing "welcome to the big league".

    If the choice is between losing a war, or losing some motivated women better qualified for less physical tasks, I hope they break them in half in Phase One, for the good of the nation.

    -Aesop

    ReplyDelete
  4. The most recent of many horrible PC ideas to come from Democrat administrations. Women in combat, women on submarines, repeal of don't ask, don't tell (I really don't give a shit if a soldier or sailor is gay, just STFU about it), now this. God help us.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The same liberals that are pushing this PC crap on the United States Military will make sure to exclude their daughters from service. It will be "flyover" territory sons and daughters that will have to bear the consequences of this political correct actions to appease the hardcore feminist that hate the military anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I've read another post and the comments on the SOFREP.com site just today about this. http://sofrep.com/8339/female-cst-special-forces-enabler-speaks/

    I'm not for lowering the standards for any of our military based on gender or to be politically correct.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The task that needs to be done is not as important as who gets to do it! Don't you understand the modern thinking? I asked one of my best friends a Vietnam infantry vet; "Do you know or have met a woman who could do what you and the other men did for a solid year?" His answer was a definite NO. He is no chauvinist. I don't think war will change to make it more gender friendly. Only when we lose will it be totally gender inclusive!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Being a Mechanized Cav. Scout was one of the most physically demanding things that I ever did in my life. I also can safely say that it was not even close to what the Rangers and SF guys did.
    Now I am sure that there are a very few woman who could cut the mustard. Say maybe one out of say five thousand. But in the cold hard light of day, what does it bring to the table? I can not think of anything myself. Also I read in Army Times that we will soon have the smallest Army since 1940. Our Foes must get a laugh that we have to recruit woman to defend our Republic.
    What I am afraid of is that this is just another example of a "feel good" law. Which will wind up wasting time, money, resources and get some folks seriously hurt. That and destroying a great military institution that has served us well in the name of fairness & equality.

    ReplyDelete
  9. TomR,armed in TexasJune 21, 2012 at 7:20 PM

    My military career ended as a result of serious injury in Phase 3 of Ranger School. I was an SF NCO and a Vietnam vet(Army Aviation). I cannot conceive of women in the Rangers or SF or a host of other MOS's. It is not so much sexism as it is reality. I do not question the sincerity or bravery of women who might attempt to qualify and function in these slots. It is their physical ability primarily and to a degree the potential emotional responses in dire situations. There would also be the unfairness to men of the normal need to protect females and the requirement of extra respect given to females that they don't need for usual male bonding.

    All in all a bad idea. As unmilitary as nation building.

    ReplyDelete