Is Ranger School "as we knew it" dead?

http://www.breachbangclear.com/is-ranger-school-as-we-knew-it-dead/

Like a moron I didn't add the link. Typical LT move. Doing push ups as we speak.

Anyone care to comment on the fact in Ranger school today you get many/ multiple chances to go thru with NO time limit? Ranger tab Nov ‘ 66. NO RECYCLES except medical. You get ONE shot to complete NOT this 4 to 6 MONTHS nonsense VietnAm Ranger Advisor ‘ 68 - ‘ 69

Ranger tab. Nov ‘. 66. Major you might be interested in the ‘ OLD ‘ Ranger school. NO RECYCLES except medical you got ONE shot to complete in 9 WEEKS NOT 4 to 6 MONTHS Charlie Beckwith Camp Commander why have standards been lowered so much ? So girls could pass?Use to have high attrition rates. Last thing I needed was a girl on the battlefield RVN Inf combat Vet Ranger advisor Vietnamese Army ‘ 68 - ‘ 69

Ranger tab. nov. ' 66. In my day NO RECYCLE except for medical. You got ONE SHOT and 9 w
WEEKS NOT 4 to 6 Months to complete. Charlie Beckwith was Camp Commander why have standards been lowered so much? So girls can pass? Army Ranger RVN Vet. And YES Ranger school IS DEAD

R.I.P...RIP
RLTW!

Let's be honest. EVERY school has had political influence. President, senate, house, secretary of blah blah have been able to get "their" people into schools. So, you could argue that ranger school was dead before it was born. Every school under the auspices of DOD has always had some undue influence, or encouraged promotion... but it's a school. It doesn't reflect on how that leader actually performs. I don't think Merrill would have any objection if a woman climbed and fought and Point Du Hoc. If we don't realize WOMEN can do things men can't and I am speaking from my intel perspective, then we also can't tell our heads are still in the sand.

He makes some interesting points, but how old is that guy? Ranger school has been what he's whining about for a very, very long time.

OK, the extremely condescending tone of the source article aside, the author of the article undercuts some of his own points. Perhaps this most obvious example of this is use of the "it's not just a leader school it's an infantry school" idea. There are two areas where his misses his point.

As he points out, from its inception, Ranger school has been used to make better leaders. This is why one officer and one NCO per unit were supposed to be ranger qualified. They were to train the others in their home unit how to be better combat prepared. That seems like exactly the job of a leadership school.

In another point, the article states that all combat arms officers should be required to attend. If this were just "an infantry school," why have other combat arms officers/enlisted go to the school at all? Why combat arms? Obviously because they are likely to encounter combat.

As the recent wars have shown, combat often times does not limit itself to "combat arms" soldiers. MPs have been involved in combat, so why shouldn't MPs be better trained in patrol or platoon sized tactics? Similarly, pilots have a good possibility of having to fight on the ground should they get shot down or due to mechanical failure. Doesn't it make sense to provide these trained professionals with the training needed to fight on in a situation that has occurred more times that any of us know?

In an attempt to wrap up my fairly rambling post, it seems like women in combat arms positions are coming sooner rather than later. This is something that is inevitable. The Army is changing. Whether you feel it is for good or ill is up to you. Your options are to accept it...or not, but an attempt to undercut the acheivement of these two officers, and all the other members of that class, simply because of a longing for the "good ole days" shows that there are no valid points left, so why not try slinging some mud?