Update later today - But, More women may go to Ranger School, according to the CSA!

"Ranger School was opened to women on a one-time basis by the Army following a directive from senior Pentagon officials to research how they can be better integrated into combat units." This is from the Stars and Stripes. This is what the Army said. What happened to the one-time basis? Why is it always something that changes while this goes on. It just makes more questions arise. Why couldn't they just say "We are going to send as many women as it takes til one passes" or like the Marines just say we will try for a set time frame.

What really bothers me is how this is being viewed. What does "It's been a real success for us, and we'll see how it goes from there" even mean? How are they defining a success? Is it successful if they just send females? They don't seem to be doing so well. I thought success was measured there by getting your tab and not by showing up. Are we going to call failure a success?

What also bothers me is how "Patrolling is something you learn from experience, and they just have not had the experience of doing it," he said. So what about all of the male soldiers that aren't Combat Arms. They seem to get by. We had a Chaplin in my Ranger School class. He passed. The South Carolina sent an F-16 pilot and he passed. Didn't they all go to RTAC to prepare them for this. They are on an even with their non-combat Arms peers. Don't they go over basic military patrols and tactics at Basic Training, OCS, or their advanced.

This is just nothing but more excuse and smoke and mirrors. They are making this out to be something that it isn't. The females knew they didn't know patrols. It's an insult to just say, well you know females don't patrol because that is what guys do so they are going to have trouble there. They got the same training others get. I don't see how any of this could be unfair to them. Let them achieve or fail on their own merit.

"The feedback I'm getting is these females are performing exceedingly well, physically, mentally, and the cadre is very proud of how they've done," he said. How do you define exceedingly well? All of them failed the first phase and got recycled. Either they set the bar extremely low from the start or it is lip service. If you took their sex out of it and just said "Ranger X failed Benning Phase and had to start all over again" my reply would be "Man, Ranger X is doing exceedingly well there. I am so proud of him. He is really representing his unit so well." Are we treating them as females or as Rangers?

If I recall it right Gen Odierno was an Armor Officer. So he might not have the experience in patrolling also. So does that mean he can't figure it out or adapt and complete the mission. Although I will just add he doesn't have a tab.

It's hard for me to know what to feel about the "standards" angle of this issue.

When the CSA says that standards have not changed, I do believe him, mostly because I want to believe him. But there will always be people who see it the other way, because they want to see it the other way...no matter what GEN Odierno says. They will say, "Ohhh, suuuure. Sure the standards didn't change. Yeah right!" In cases like this, it can be near impossible for one side to convince the other.

I hope that we see a female graduate of Ranger School soon, and I hope that there is no controversy surrounding that ceremony.

if they meet initial standards good, hopefully they dont lower any of them.

All for equality, if it is really equality. No changes in standards and no exemptions (for example, "do it only if I want to", whereas males do not have that option). To be truly equal, there needs to be no disparity at all. Makes and females treated exactly equal.

A few lines of the article, specifically quoted:

"Patrolling is something you learn from experience, and they just have not had the experience of doing it,"

Seems to highlight the issue. Taken above and beyond the physical requirements. The candidates lacked "background" which is a hell of a hurdle. Sure, no bad habits to unlearn, but also no fundamentals to build upon.

This isn't like the USMC where everyone has to go through MCT/ITB/TBS to get the fundamentals pounded into them, and that's just from a knowledge standpoint. Add in the physical aspects, and we may be expecting too much, too fast. Or in other words, setting people up for failure.

I'm all for "baptism by fire" but I'm also for "baby steps." I think this may be one leap too fast. Sure open the school, however, there may need to be some prerequisite schools before Ranger for both genders, which might help reduce the fail/recycle rate.

I personally give a huge props to the women who started on this unique adventure. I know my body, and its limitations. There's no way I could physically take on even a 1/4 of what they did thus far.

What I firmly believe needs to happen is for the Army to stop isolating these females. How many men failed out of this as well? How many were actually peered out? Again, I am not claiming that I could physically accomplish a feat like this, but the fact that they haven't been peered out yet is sending a strong message to our Troops. Wether we know it or not, our way of thinking is changing when it comes to women in combat arms.

I think it's completely fair that all the male fat bodies in the Army (with their belly spilling over their PT belts while running a 14+ minute 2 mile) should have Ranger School open to them permanently, while female studs who PT like it's their job (marathons, Cross Fit, etc.) should not have Ranger School open to them. Obviously.

Sir, I agree with you on the non-combat MOS's. Still, more power to them if they can complete it!