Is Ranger School "as we knew it" dead?

I think this article is bunk; well-written bunk, but bunk nonetheless. The first problem with the first part of the article is that there is no proof that Ranger School is a "punch" for promotion. We just retired GEN Ray Odierno and will soon retire GEN Martin Dempsey, two of the most influential and distinguished Service-members of our day. Neither of those men, the former CSA and CJCS, are Ranger qualified. Ranger School has previously had Sergeants Major and field-grade officers as students; are they punching their ticket? Are they going to employ those tactical combat skills? No, hopefully not (more on this below, Ranger School is a leadership school). Certainly, if all other factors are equal then having the Ranger Tab should lead to promotion. But that hardly makes it a punch.

The second problem with the first part of the article is his suggestion that women weaken the military. His proof is a vague reference to "our allies and our enemies." He calls women's inclusion a strategic failure, but that is incredibly narrow and short-sighted. We are in a volunteer military within a democratic republic. Strategy includes the home front as well as the theater of combat. The U.S. Military needs to be a reflection (not a proportional microcosm) of the nation. This issue does not boil down to some tracking instructor's views on national defense policy. Our elected representatives will eventually force us to change our institutions if we do not own up to policing our own profession. Policing a profession means reexamining assumptions and preconceptions. By all reasonable and verifiable evidence, two women out of an original class of 19 (an attrition rate of nearly 90 per cent) passed the course by the same rigorous standards which have made Ranger School famous. The argument that "women couldn't pass Marine Infantry School, so these two must not have passed the much more difficult Ranger School without having the standards lowered" is critically flawed; these two women never attended the Marine Corps' school. How many more women in the Army (and other Services) can pass Ranger School? Some, even many, if we give them a chance, but none can pass if we don't. Getting back to the main point, who really cares about the "cultures that we interact with" if we don't care about our own culture? The United States are about leading the world, not hesitating to do what is right because of what our Allies or enemies (what is he thinking??) think about it.

The problem with "Part 2" of combat Santa Claus' rant, as alluded to above, is that Ranger School is in fact a leadership school. As the author points out, correctly, "[e]mphasis is placed on the development of individual combat skills and abilities," but in an ironic twist given his accusations, it is he who is still "NOT GETTING IT." Ranger Students are NOT graded on individual combat skills and abilities (except in the first week of the school and then only very briefly). Teaching individual combat skills is the responsibility of basic training and of the Soldier's unit. Does the author believe that we have no reason to send AG Soldiers (or Finance, Quartermaster, Ordnance, Maintenance, etc.) to basic training? Why do those MOSs need any individual combat skills? The reason why they do is obvious, but that reason also makes clear why it is obvious to train women in these skills, and why it is now becoming obvious why women should be allowed to compete for a Ranger School slot. Those tactical, combat skills are Common Tasks! "Emphasis" is placed on those skills and abilities in Ranger School because it wouldn't make much sense to make Ranger students man a TOC or a checkpoint on no sleep, no food, and while humping 100 pounds. The word "emphasis" has its own meaning, and the author misses the point when he attributes the utility of the entire School merely to the skills and abilities which are *emphasized*. The point he misses is that Ranger Students are graded on their leadership abilities; to pass the course, you must get 40 other tired, starving, heavily encumbered, stinking, stressed, giardia infested people to keep going and complete the assigned mission.

If Ranger School as we knew it is dead, then let it rest in peace, and long live the new Ranger School.

Yes, this is a well written article but the fact remains, neither the author, I or anyone else here was there during the class that these two females attended. We cannot sit here and say that without a doubt, these women were given special treatment to ensure their success throughout the course.

As I followed this major event, my mind has continuously gone back to when the military would open itself to allow "new people" to join. For example, the Tuskegee Airmen. Here you saw African American males attend and complete flight school. These men had to bust their butts day and day out; not only to pass the course requirements but to pass the test of public thought. Many thought that these men would not be as effective when flying. These men, while commissioned officers, were not always allotted the same rights and privileges as their white counterparts. When they first deployed, they were far removed from the combat but once given the chance, these men proved themselves to be very effective against the Germans. The bombers started to request "The Red Tails" because of their success rate in escorting bombers in and out of the enemy held air space.

So fast forward to 2015, we are seeing almost the same thing. The public is doubting these two women. These two women have successfully completed the course, yet the public continues to say they were given special treatment when in fact, none of us were there. I lay my trust in the professionalism of the Ranger Instructors. I lay my trust in the fact that they held these two females to exact same standard as the males in the course. I lay my trust in the fact we have seen females time and time again perform successfully along side their male counterparts both in training and in the combat zone.

Will we see more females try to complete the course? I'm sure we will. I'm also sure we will see some wash out and others complete it. I'm also sure that over time, as more and more people gain acceptance of the fact that these women aren't just handed the Ranger Tab that the public thought will turn from a negative view to a positive view.

Ranger School "as we knew it" was dead in 95 when the four students drowned. Prior to that RI's simply walked with the students, observed and graded them. Now, students are guided into lanes that have been cleared the day before, that have medics on boats positioned up and downstream, helicopters with hoists on standby, several FLA's on standby, and the evacuation system is tested and rehearsed in each phase at the beginning of each class. The entire way Ranger School is conducted changed. It's much less dangerous now, you will probably not die. But, it's still brutally difficult, and you might wish you were dead a few times.

The author was doing a great job with "intent & purpose" and correlating it with how that has swayed away into "career progression." That was a beautifully crafted argument. Unfortunately, he should have just left it at that. It was a solidly and well built statement that stood on it's own.

There's a point where his logical argument "goes off the rails" and implies things which his previous facts just don't support.

When did this guy go through Ranger Training? He is SO full of it! Everybody has an opinion. Let's give praise to where it belongs. The two females that made it are RANGERS, period. They stood up to volunteer, they took the initiative to prepare themselves, they dived in passing and failing, but they never quit, they learned, they conquered, and they passed to the standards that have been set. They are high achievers and they earned it. It does not matter what the critique says, what matters is that you get in the ring and fight and you come out a warrior. Successful they are, they are Rangers, respect it, they earned it. These Ladies lead the way. Rangers Lead The Way.

This article is pretty much irrelevant, but I do agree with his concept of our allies and enemies having a vote. I'm specifically speaking for Special Forces because we work hand in hand with indigenous populations conducting Unconventional Warfare. I congratulate these two women, and I'm sure the standards weren't changed for them from everything I've heard. Let's not make the mistake of letting the graduation of a School, be a yardstick to whether or not women will enhance the combat effectiveness of a unit. In Special Forces (Green Berets not the Umbrella term SOF), we conduct “activities to enable a resistance or insurgency to coerce, disrupt or overthrow a government or occupying power through and with an underground, auxiliary, and guerrilla force in a denied area.” These denied areas are in countries that don't have the same societal norms as we do. To be blunt women aren't respected or treated as equal. It is not an issue of whether a woman can physically or mentally make it through the Special Forces Qualification Course (I'm sure they can), it is an issue of is she the right person for the mission. The answer is no. i.e. The Special Forces Detachment with a female Commander that gets the call to infiltrate into a denied area (let's pick anywhere in the Middle East for example) will link up and will immediately fail the first step of building rapport with the guerrilla fighters. Why? because they don't respect women and will not follow them in combat, it's as simple as that. We cannot force our culture on others. When we look at integration, we need to look at mission enhancement and effectiveness, not whether or not someone can physically do something.

I don't know about "dead" but the term "coveted" has been kidnapped.

I actually very much agree with this article and was a little bit confused when all of the talk of Ranger school first started. I ASSUMED that completing ranger school meant you were going to be a Ranger. I was wrong.

Having it as a requirement as a leadership course does detract from it being the course to qualify you for being a Ranger. Again, like the author, I don't think this has anything to do with the females, but rather a lack of separation between a special forces training course and a leadership opportunity.

CPT (Join to see) Thank you for posting this, it was a great read. There is a lot of information to be taken from this that has nothing to do with the male female debate.

Interesting point of view ... thanks for posting CPT (Join to see).