Posted on Feb 7, 2015
What do you "Honestly" think about women attending Ranger School?
235K
1.43K
750
93
89
4
Myself and hundreds of other Retired Rangers are tired of all this nonsense of women attending Ranger School. Why is the Army leadership encouraging special preference to attend a premier infantry and leadership school. It is a hard journey for qualified Male Infantrymen to compete for and get an extremely limited slot to attend the Ranger Course. Many of Rangers had to prove themselves to be hardened Infantry Sergeants in order to even be considered to attend the local Pre-Ranger Course, before even thinking of attending The Ranger Course. Normally an Infantry Company and/or Battalion could only send "one" representative soldier to the Pre-Ranger Course (per course). Infantry Soldiers competed amongst each other to get that slot. The 21-day Pre-Ranger Course, was definitely tough as or tougher than Ranger School itself, was hell to get through. And even after passing, was not a guaranteed slot to attend The Ranger Course due to budget, deployment, and training issues for the unit (not the individual soldier). If you did not get the opportunity to attend The Ranger Course within six months, well it was a requirement to attend the local Division 21-day Pre-Ranger (assessment) Course again. Once again, the male soldier had to pass all standards in order to be recommended to attend The Ranger Course. The Ranger Course had the toughest standards. To begin day one of the Ranger Course, during the APFT, the Ranger Instructor (RI) would not allow you to pass the push up or sit up event the first time. Every Male Ranger Student failed the push up event and had to perform the push up event a second time (five to ten minutes later) to Standard! My first attempt at the push up event, we had to complete at least 62 push ups. The RI was counting, 59, 60, 61, 61, 61... and so on. We were warned that we could not stop during the two minute event or else we would be considered a failure at this event. So I kept knocking out the push ups and asked the RI what it was that I was doing wrong. He answered with, shut up Ranger and keep knocking them (push ups) out or you will fail. I kept my mouth shut and knocked out approximately 120 push ups. The RI failed me. I got back in line and had the same RI grade my push ups again about ten minutes later. 59, 60, 61, 61, 61, once again I asked what it was I was doing wrong while I cranked out those push ups, and once again the RI stated shut up Ranger and keep knocking them out or else you will fail. That was the first moments of Ranger School and every standard was just as tough. If you were just there to earn your Tab, you were surely going to drop out of the course. But if you were a fully prepared Infantry Stud with the attitude that you attended the Ranger Course to test yourself and understood that you were going to have to push beyond all personal limitations in order to merely make it through the relentless day of Ranger Training. The one thing I really appreciated about Ranger School is that the Standards were set so high, every Infantry Soldier knew it was the very best training and test that any soldier can volunteer for. When finished, with an average of one hour of sleep per day, moving with heavy (very heavy) loads about 10 to 25 kilometers per day, performing tactical maneuvers, and being graded in leadership positions. It was far more harsh than I ever expected, every bit the hardest single accomplishment as far as physical and mental exhaustion in a training environment is concerned. Even for the most hardened and gruesome Infantryman. Ranger School was no joke. I'm not thinking it is at all a place for females. There is no way possible to keep the standards the same. We were not taken back to the rear with the gear to shower when we smelled. That is what Infantrymen do. It is dirty and frankly stinky, to say the least. I eventually became an RI in the Desert Phase and then later in my career a Senior Ranger Instructor in the Mountain Phase. It was a humbling experience serving with top notch soldiers / world class athlete Rangers. To say the least it was an Honor serving with the Ranger Training Brigade and maintain the standards. Let us not lose that, the standards. Let us not add the nonsense of preferential treatment. The RI's were hard as nails but fair. Let us not give away the farm to break the glass ceiling. You will rarely hear any news of Rangers in action, it is a quiet professional tight knit unit that prides itself on operational security. I can see no way to not change the standards once women attend the Ranger Course. This course will become a political agenda which will cause the truly dedicated Ranger Instructors to lose their jobs as RI's as we once knew it. Is it too late to turn back? Let the nonsense begin, female issues, separate but same, political agenda, media scrutiny, RI unfairness, sexual harassment, preferential treatment, male students No-Go's due to (female) not performing to standards during patrols... The list can go on, just ask any RI that has served a full term as an Ranger Instructor. Let us not forget the original intent for this course is to train men to lead soldiers into combat. When we give these limited (Ranger School) slots to female soldiers/officers, then we take away from the Infantryman, the soldiers themselves, and the Infantry Units. Let us not take this away.
Retired Ranger 1SG David D. Lopez
Paso Robles, CA
Retired Ranger 1SG David D. Lopez
Paso Robles, CA
Women in the Military
Ranger
Ranger School
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 240
2
2
0
It all starts with a 888 and a Packet, if these Soldiers we speak of did not have such things and where allowed to just jump in for the fun of it, then I think we see the Big issue from the start. Standards must be kept for all ranks and sexes
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
ISgt Lopez, I have a question would non qualified female soldiers be admitted to this school in some sort of afermative action situation or quota to be politically correct? If so that would be stupid and wasteful of the tax payers money. However if there are a few GI Jane's out there that could make the grade I say go for it. I would never make it but why let a uturous and mamery glands get in the way...
(2)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
1SG David Lopez Let's check our facts--its usually helpful to confirm facts before wading into an argument. 30 women just went to pre-Ranger; 16 finished; five passed. The five that passed will go to Ranger School in April. The pass rate for women from this pre-Ranger was about 17%. The pass rate for men from this pre-Ranger was 55%. Five women will be around 1.3 percent of the April class--that is a few, not very many. See: http://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/rtb/content/PDF/Ranger%20School%20web11.pdf and http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2015/0205/In-a-historic-first-five-women-qualify-for-Army-Ranger-School).
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Every female who gets a slot to Ranger School has to pass RTAC first. The whole point of this experiment is to determine whether women should be integrated into the infantry, so it makes literally no sense to complain that they are taking slots away from infantry guys. Women never had the option to go infantry. Furthermore, do you complain about all the combat service support guys who get slots? Does a signal or AG Soldier really need to be Ranger qualified if they are not in the Regiment?
(1)
(0)
1SG David Lopez
I just have to ask Mam, Did you see the Velcro response? We all have different opinions, we respect your opinion, and personally I hope you are one of the female candidates to attend the Ranger Course, but believe me when I say, it is no joke.
(0)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
Statistically speaking, does it make fiscal sense to send women to Ranger school when only 17% can make it through pre-Ranger class, when 55% of the men sent can be expected to make it through?
In these fiscally austere times, the taxpayers deserve a better accounting. How much is it worth to be politically correct and have Susie up on the front lines engaging the enemy? And what happens when Susie decides she doesn't want to be a Ranger anymore?
We can talk all day long about maintaining the same standards as the men, but as many here correctly pointed out, it's just talk. In reality standards WILL be lowered to accommodate and instead of women passing the course, as others stated, they WILL be passed in order to appease the PC wishes of their higher ups who likewise are being pressured by political leaders to do something to be more gender neutral and inclusive.
The military has one purpose: to step in when diplomacy fails and engage our nation's enemies on the field of battle, defeating them decisively in the most expeditious and cost efficient (in terms of both fiscal and human resources) manner possible.
This is getting away from that. The military is NOT a place for social experimentation. We should not lower standards in order to accommodate the desires of a few, regardless of the potential ability of 1 or 2 that possibly could get through the training. It's a waste of taxpayer resources to put all that effort in when the chance of success is predictably and statistically 38% lower, and that's just for the prep school!
Military service to our country is a privilege, not a right. Not every man has what it takes to be a Ranger, let alone woman. People should be thankful for the privilege to serve and not try to get standards lowered to accommodate them. When we do that, we lose that which made being a Ranger so elite.
PC has no place on the field of combat.
In these fiscally austere times, the taxpayers deserve a better accounting. How much is it worth to be politically correct and have Susie up on the front lines engaging the enemy? And what happens when Susie decides she doesn't want to be a Ranger anymore?
We can talk all day long about maintaining the same standards as the men, but as many here correctly pointed out, it's just talk. In reality standards WILL be lowered to accommodate and instead of women passing the course, as others stated, they WILL be passed in order to appease the PC wishes of their higher ups who likewise are being pressured by political leaders to do something to be more gender neutral and inclusive.
The military has one purpose: to step in when diplomacy fails and engage our nation's enemies on the field of battle, defeating them decisively in the most expeditious and cost efficient (in terms of both fiscal and human resources) manner possible.
This is getting away from that. The military is NOT a place for social experimentation. We should not lower standards in order to accommodate the desires of a few, regardless of the potential ability of 1 or 2 that possibly could get through the training. It's a waste of taxpayer resources to put all that effort in when the chance of success is predictably and statistically 38% lower, and that's just for the prep school!
Military service to our country is a privilege, not a right. Not every man has what it takes to be a Ranger, let alone woman. People should be thankful for the privilege to serve and not try to get standards lowered to accommodate them. When we do that, we lose that which made being a Ranger so elite.
PC has no place on the field of combat.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
The Army’s first pilot program for women going to Ranger School suggests that there is an expectation that only one of the five candidates that recently passed pre-Ranger will likely graduate the course.
But, first, there seems to be some confusion about what Ranger School is or isn’t on these threads. Here’s a good, sort of detailed brief to help answer some of these questions: http://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/rtb/content/PDF/Ranger%20School%20web11.pdf. Ranger School is hard--really hard. Most candidates fail. Many candidates try and try and try again and fail.
Second, we should have fully gender integrated units across the military. We’ll be a stronger military, as long as the same standards apply to all. Solid, sensible, equal, and enforced standards make a better Army.
Third, statistics. The Army’s first pilot program for women going to Ranger School suggests that there is an expectation that only one of these five candidates will likely graduate the course.
For the pre-Ranger course that just finished, of the 30 women candidates, 16 finished, and 5 will be going to the Ranger School that starts in April. 5/30 = 16.6%. The statistic for men passing this same pre-Ranger was 55%. (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2015/0205/In-a-historic-first-five-women-qualify-for-Army-Ranger-School)
For stats on Ranger School overall, go to http://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/rtb/. The graduation rate from FY06-FY11 was 50.16%. The graduation rate from FY2000-FY2012 was 48.99% (http://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/rtb/content/PDF/Ranger%20School%20web11.pdf. ). 57% of total failures occur during RAP week.
Basic assumptions: The same percentage of women will graduate from Ranger School as men. Given the available data, and some rounding, 50% of women who go to Ranger School should be expected to graduate from Ranger School. Five women are going to Ranger School in April. 50% of 5 is 2.5, so using the basic assumption and rounding, 3 of these 5 should graduate Ranger School.
But we have additional data to evaluate. First, the 30 women who attended this pre-Ranger course were selected from the best candidates from across the Army. The typical Ranger course has 366 candidates on Day 0, about a third of which are 2LTs. I focus on this group because it is the largest by rank, and because, from my experience and understanding, almost all infantry 2LTs “volunteer” for Ranger School, but far from “almost all” infantry 2LTs actually want to go to Ranger School. Many quit the first day, or “purposefully” fail RAP events, or refuse recycle when it is offered to them. I don’t have the data, but it is likely a safe assumption that many of those who fail RAP week didn’t “really” want to be at Ranger School in the first place. And remember that RAP week represents 57% of all failures. My point: the five women going to Ranger School really want to be there; they’ve been selected from among the best candidates across the Army; and they already passed pre-Ranger. This skews the expected graduation rate upwards, based on what I’ll call a “motivational skewing factor.” Ranger School is almost entirely mental (several experienced CSMs on this thread have said Ranger School is 80% mental, and I’d agree with that).
“Peers” account for five percent of Ranger School failures. I’d expect the number of “bad peers” to be higher for women in this first Ranger course--and only because I’d expect that a large percentage of the very young men who comprise the majority of Ranger candidates espouse the anti-women-in-Ranger-School-and-combat-arms views many on this thread have espoused, not least because about a third of any Ranger course is comprised of E3-E5, and most E3-E5 at Ranger School come from the Ranger Battalions, which aren’t well known for assimilating to Army integrative programs (ie, the whole “you want to wear black berets, too? Ok, then we’ll wear tan ones! incident comes to mind.) This skews the expected graduation rate downwards, if only slightly.
“Administrative” failures account for about 2.5% of failures. There’s no reason to think this would increase or decrease based on gender.
“Student actions” account for 7.5% of failures. This includes LOM and serious observation reports. I’ve already noted that LOM is probably a lower likelihood from this group of 5 females. And there is no compelling reason to assert that females are at greater risk of a bad spot report. Ranger Instructors are ornery and mean and very standards-based, but the controls seem to be in place to ensure these female candidates are treaty equally.
“Medical” accounts for 6.76% of failures. Many on these threads have argued that women will fail Ranger School at higher rates because of injury. Nonsense, I say. Again, I don’t have the data, and my argument would be stronger if I did, but I recall that most injury-based Ranger School failures were from things like a candidate stepping in a hole and breaking a leg, or falling off a cliff at night, or getting bit by a snake, or other accidents. Women will be as lucky or unlucky as men in this regard.
But, we also have to adjust expectations based on the data from the pre-Ranger course. Women passed at a rate 3.3 times lower than men (16.6% vs. 55%). Men graduate Ranger School at a rate very close to 50%. 3.3 times lower than 50% is 15.5%.
15.5% of 5 = 0.75. Rounding this to 1, which seems logical due to the “motivational skewing factor” above outweighing the potential for “bad peers”, would suggest one of the five female candidates will graduate.
That means 4 of these female candidates will likely fail. As 57% of failures occur during RAP, it is likely that 2 of these failures will occur during RAP.
Of the 3 who pass RAP, two are likely to pass Darby Phase and move to Mountain Phase. One of these two is likely to recycle Darby, Mountains, or Florida. And only one is likely to graduate.
I wish the five female candidates, and their 361 or so male peers, the best of luck this coming April. I’d encourage all of them to remember that most who start do not graduate from Ranger School; that Ranger School is mostly mental, so just don’t quit; that Ranger School is a team sport, so always volunteer to help your Ranger buddies; remember to take care of your feet; and don’t be a chow thief.
Finally, as an aside, many on this thread have complained about the choice of April for the first pilot program. Ranger School is hard at any time of the year. It is cold in the winter, spring, and fall. Hot in the summer. Again, statistics would help, but I’d guess that the pass/fail rates for the April course are pretty similar to courses held at other times during the year.
But, first, there seems to be some confusion about what Ranger School is or isn’t on these threads. Here’s a good, sort of detailed brief to help answer some of these questions: http://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/rtb/content/PDF/Ranger%20School%20web11.pdf. Ranger School is hard--really hard. Most candidates fail. Many candidates try and try and try again and fail.
Second, we should have fully gender integrated units across the military. We’ll be a stronger military, as long as the same standards apply to all. Solid, sensible, equal, and enforced standards make a better Army.
Third, statistics. The Army’s first pilot program for women going to Ranger School suggests that there is an expectation that only one of these five candidates will likely graduate the course.
For the pre-Ranger course that just finished, of the 30 women candidates, 16 finished, and 5 will be going to the Ranger School that starts in April. 5/30 = 16.6%. The statistic for men passing this same pre-Ranger was 55%. (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2015/0205/In-a-historic-first-five-women-qualify-for-Army-Ranger-School)
For stats on Ranger School overall, go to http://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/rtb/. The graduation rate from FY06-FY11 was 50.16%. The graduation rate from FY2000-FY2012 was 48.99% (http://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/rtb/content/PDF/Ranger%20School%20web11.pdf. ). 57% of total failures occur during RAP week.
Basic assumptions: The same percentage of women will graduate from Ranger School as men. Given the available data, and some rounding, 50% of women who go to Ranger School should be expected to graduate from Ranger School. Five women are going to Ranger School in April. 50% of 5 is 2.5, so using the basic assumption and rounding, 3 of these 5 should graduate Ranger School.
But we have additional data to evaluate. First, the 30 women who attended this pre-Ranger course were selected from the best candidates from across the Army. The typical Ranger course has 366 candidates on Day 0, about a third of which are 2LTs. I focus on this group because it is the largest by rank, and because, from my experience and understanding, almost all infantry 2LTs “volunteer” for Ranger School, but far from “almost all” infantry 2LTs actually want to go to Ranger School. Many quit the first day, or “purposefully” fail RAP events, or refuse recycle when it is offered to them. I don’t have the data, but it is likely a safe assumption that many of those who fail RAP week didn’t “really” want to be at Ranger School in the first place. And remember that RAP week represents 57% of all failures. My point: the five women going to Ranger School really want to be there; they’ve been selected from among the best candidates across the Army; and they already passed pre-Ranger. This skews the expected graduation rate upwards, based on what I’ll call a “motivational skewing factor.” Ranger School is almost entirely mental (several experienced CSMs on this thread have said Ranger School is 80% mental, and I’d agree with that).
“Peers” account for five percent of Ranger School failures. I’d expect the number of “bad peers” to be higher for women in this first Ranger course--and only because I’d expect that a large percentage of the very young men who comprise the majority of Ranger candidates espouse the anti-women-in-Ranger-School-and-combat-arms views many on this thread have espoused, not least because about a third of any Ranger course is comprised of E3-E5, and most E3-E5 at Ranger School come from the Ranger Battalions, which aren’t well known for assimilating to Army integrative programs (ie, the whole “you want to wear black berets, too? Ok, then we’ll wear tan ones! incident comes to mind.) This skews the expected graduation rate downwards, if only slightly.
“Administrative” failures account for about 2.5% of failures. There’s no reason to think this would increase or decrease based on gender.
“Student actions” account for 7.5% of failures. This includes LOM and serious observation reports. I’ve already noted that LOM is probably a lower likelihood from this group of 5 females. And there is no compelling reason to assert that females are at greater risk of a bad spot report. Ranger Instructors are ornery and mean and very standards-based, but the controls seem to be in place to ensure these female candidates are treaty equally.
“Medical” accounts for 6.76% of failures. Many on these threads have argued that women will fail Ranger School at higher rates because of injury. Nonsense, I say. Again, I don’t have the data, and my argument would be stronger if I did, but I recall that most injury-based Ranger School failures were from things like a candidate stepping in a hole and breaking a leg, or falling off a cliff at night, or getting bit by a snake, or other accidents. Women will be as lucky or unlucky as men in this regard.
But, we also have to adjust expectations based on the data from the pre-Ranger course. Women passed at a rate 3.3 times lower than men (16.6% vs. 55%). Men graduate Ranger School at a rate very close to 50%. 3.3 times lower than 50% is 15.5%.
15.5% of 5 = 0.75. Rounding this to 1, which seems logical due to the “motivational skewing factor” above outweighing the potential for “bad peers”, would suggest one of the five female candidates will graduate.
That means 4 of these female candidates will likely fail. As 57% of failures occur during RAP, it is likely that 2 of these failures will occur during RAP.
Of the 3 who pass RAP, two are likely to pass Darby Phase and move to Mountain Phase. One of these two is likely to recycle Darby, Mountains, or Florida. And only one is likely to graduate.
I wish the five female candidates, and their 361 or so male peers, the best of luck this coming April. I’d encourage all of them to remember that most who start do not graduate from Ranger School; that Ranger School is mostly mental, so just don’t quit; that Ranger School is a team sport, so always volunteer to help your Ranger buddies; remember to take care of your feet; and don’t be a chow thief.
Finally, as an aside, many on this thread have complained about the choice of April for the first pilot program. Ranger School is hard at any time of the year. It is cold in the winter, spring, and fall. Hot in the summer. Again, statistics would help, but I’d guess that the pass/fail rates for the April course are pretty similar to courses held at other times during the year.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Ranger School places high emphasis on upper body strength and stamina. Considering women generally have 20%-30% less upper body strength than males, that ratio seems about right.
(2)
(0)
CSM (Join to see)
Sir- I would slightly disagree with you about a high emphasis on upper body strength. Other than pushups on the APFT, a couple chin ups, and climbing a few ropes on the Darby Queen you really don't use anything but your legs after that. I would put the upper body strength needed in Ranger School to the amount of upper body strength you need in Air Assault or Airborne school and females graduate that daily.
I would say there is more of an emphasis on mental strength and endurance than anything else.
I would say there is more of an emphasis on mental strength and endurance than anything else.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
I'm with PV2 Abbott Shaull, TSgt Joshua Copeland. On the surface of things it's not an impressive percentage, but if 55% of men get through the prep course, 19% for women is understandable and may even be good, especially because the course is probably heavily weighted toward physical "feats" that men are naturally going to be better at.
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I am very skeptic of this. As I mentioned the women that went were hand selected. They should be the best the Army has to offer. On top of that they only prepare you for Benning Phase. They don't get a taste of the mountains till after Benning. That is where Strength, or lack there of, plays a major factor. I know, I did mountain phase twice.
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
CW4 Juan Morales
When I went to the school, we had to be recommended to our Bn Pre Ranger, complete that and based on OML we divided out the slots. One could argue that all the men that attend Ranger School are also "hand picked"
(0)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
I had to compete for a slot at Armor Officer Basic Course. Pretty much hand picked.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
I went out with the first woman to complete Ranger training a few years ago. She was a Captain when she completed the school, and she was a TOUGH GAL. If the women can hack the same training regimen as men, more power to them.
I also think our women soldiers and marines should be allowed to be in combat arms positions like the Israelis do.
I also think our women soldiers and marines should be allowed to be in combat arms positions like the Israelis do.
(1)
(0)
LTC Peter Hartman
Israel keeps women in combat arms in border guard units. Not units that go on the offensive.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I have no problem with Women attending Ranger School, even though I was denied the opportunity to do so myself because I was a Mechanized Infantry Soldier. As long as they can pull their own weight and they will be placed into a position where such a School can be applied, then it is fine with me.
I will admit, the fact that I was at the top of my OML (Order of Merit List) to be selected to be allowed to attend Ranger School for many years and was never allowed by Ranger School policy to attend was something that irritated me over a decade. By the time DA (Dept. Army) changed its policy, I was 37 years old and the Mech INF MOS was being merged with the regular INF MOS.
I will admit, the fact that I was at the top of my OML (Order of Merit List) to be selected to be allowed to attend Ranger School for many years and was never allowed by Ranger School policy to attend was something that irritated me over a decade. By the time DA (Dept. Army) changed its policy, I was 37 years old and the Mech INF MOS was being merged with the regular INF MOS.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I think it's awesome and if they make it through, they should be able to serve as Rangers. I was in an infantry brigade (1st Bde, 25th ID) as a LT, and the women did the same training as the men did. They deployed like the men did. They supported the infantryman as logisticians like their male counterparts did.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Christine Zawadzki
I just spoke to a friend of mine who is a In Bn Cdr in a Stryker Bde, and he said they do a 12-mile ruck march once a qtr. So I stand corrected on that, but again if these women passed the course they can do it as well.
(0)
(0)
SFC Mark Bailey
Again, my issue is not with the School itself...it is with the concept that it is a 'Badge' to be worn and displayed without any true use of its lessons learned afterwards...
A 12 mile Ruck March once a quarter is not Infantry....its just ARMY... I was Mech for 17 years and we ruck marched every chance we got, often with far more than a mere 40 pounds (all that was required for the Expert INF Badge). I expected my Dismount INF soldiers to keep up with me and we typically avoided getting trucked out to the LTA and road marched instead.
It would be like sending someone to Delta Course so they can work in the Post Hospital filling out discharge forms... each school has its uses and if it is about bettering the soldier then I am all for it.. if it is about giving someone the ability to display a badge on their uniform for HOOAH points... then they should stay on the OML for a decade like me (...and I actually NEEDED that school because at the time I was the Senior ranking Dismount Squad Leader in the Battalion...and yet I could not get a Ranger School slot because "Mech INF does not deserve Ranger School"
A 12 mile Ruck March once a quarter is not Infantry....its just ARMY... I was Mech for 17 years and we ruck marched every chance we got, often with far more than a mere 40 pounds (all that was required for the Expert INF Badge). I expected my Dismount INF soldiers to keep up with me and we typically avoided getting trucked out to the LTA and road marched instead.
It would be like sending someone to Delta Course so they can work in the Post Hospital filling out discharge forms... each school has its uses and if it is about bettering the soldier then I am all for it.. if it is about giving someone the ability to display a badge on their uniform for HOOAH points... then they should stay on the OML for a decade like me (...and I actually NEEDED that school because at the time I was the Senior ranking Dismount Squad Leader in the Battalion...and yet I could not get a Ranger School slot because "Mech INF does not deserve Ranger School"
(1)
(0)
MAJ Christine Zawadzki
SFC Mark Bailey - I agree with you. It shouldn't be about the badge. It should be about actions. I personally could never have been a Ranger. I'm not that caliber of a soldier. I think it should be less about a badge and more about doing the job.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google