I don’t know if this story will get widespread coverage, but it’s one we’ve certainly been tracking. We’ve been keeping you apprised of the quest for social egalitarianism in our U.S. military with the inclusion of females in combat billets (duty positions) such as Marine Infantry and U.S. Army Rangers. The Obama administration decreed in 2015 — without Congressional approval — that Army Ranger training and in 2016, U.S. Navy SEAL training would be open to females. After all, to the liberal progressives of the Obama administration and their ilk, it is just a job, which should be open and available to everyone — their definition of social justice.
Well, this recent revelation is quite telling. Remember we last reported about the eight female Soldiers who passed the pre-Ranger indoctrination course? As reported by Yahoo News, “On Friday, the Army is expected to announce that all the women who had attempted to graduate from Ranger School had officially failed to meet the standards, according to a military source. Ranger School, which grooms the Army’s most elite special operations fighting force, opened its doors to women for the first time this year. Eight of the 20 women who originally entered the school’s first co-ed class were allowed to recycle through the program after they fell out in their first go-round.”
“The Friday announcement will confirm that this happened again. The Rangers are the best of the best, and being a Ranger means passing a physical test that pushes body and mind to the breaking point. If women can’t do it, the argument goes, then they shouldn’t be Rangers. But there is another opinion quietly being voiced as well: that Ranger School is more akin to a rite of passage – an opportunity for men to “thump their chest,” as one Ranger puts it – than a realistic preparation for leading in war. That women can actually make Ranger units more effective. And that the standards that keep them out are outdated.”
This isn’t about “chest thumping,” it’s about training the toughest and hardest convention formation light infantry fighters in the U.S. Army. My greatest concern is that soon the belief will be we don’t need tough standards — after all, it’s about every kid getting a trophy. But this is not about everyone getting to play. Elite fighting force has a meaning.
Yahoo says, “This is the sort of suggestion that has long been guaranteed to create a robust outcry in many soldierly quarters – one that involves, put most politely, the charge that this would amount to lowering standards in order to meet some goal born of political correctness. It isn’t a way of thinking likely to gain great traction anytime soon. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the Army’s top officer, made this clear during a breakfast with reporters Thursday. While praising the performance of the women at the Ranger School, he added: “I’m actually fairly adamant about not changing the physical standards.”
However, my former Division Commander in the 4th Infantry in Iraq isn’t going to be the Chief of Staff of the Army much longer. As a matter of fact, his replacement has been announced. And if there’s one thing we know about the Obama administration, uniformed leaders and their assessments mean little, especially if they contradict with the desired legacy of the current Commander-in-Chief.
I’m quite sure on the Obama “honey-do list” it says, graduate first females from Ranger and SEAL training — right up there with opening up diplomatic relations with Iran and enabling militant Islamic jihadism.
And so, if the uniform leaders balk, well, just go to the ones who are part of the political cronyism of the Pentagon, the service secretaries. “Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus told the Navy Times this week that once women start attending SEAL training, it would make sense to examine the standards. “First, we’re going to make sure there are standards. Second, that they are gender-neutral, and third, that they have something to do with the job,” he said.”
So what exactly does it mean to have “gender-neutral” standards? And I just have to ponder, what’s so wrong with the current standards for the U.S. Navy SEALS? Just imagine Operation Red Wings and the exploits depicted in the book and film, “American Sniper.” What needs to be gender neutralized that produced that level of elite warrior?
And perhaps someone should inform Secretary Mabus that US Navy BUDS/UDT SEAL training does have something to do with the “job” — then again, shouldn’t the correct term be “the mission?” Again we see the liberal progressive mantra of viewing this as just another job position. They already view this conflagration against militant Islamic jihadists as a law enforcement venture — not combat.
Yahoo news writes, “This argument is less about gender equity than the firm belief that women can make Ranger battalions better. In modern warfare, relations with local populations are crucial, and women Rangers would provide unique value added in places such as Afghanistan or Iraq, where cultural norms often prohibit contact between male soldiers and women. Ranger School also showed women were innovative problem-solvers who offered fresh approaches in the field. For Col. Jason Dempsey, a fellow Ranger and West Point graduate, this points to a need for “reassessing what war-fighting is, and what’s really important,” he says, rather than “having 100,000 guys who are essentially pack mules.”
Let’s make a clear delineation. There are those who have graduated Ranger school and are considered ranger qualified. Then there are those who have completed Ranger School, are Ranger qualified, and are actually members in the Ranger Regiment or other aspects of the U.S. Army Special Operations Forces.
What seems to me rather perplexing is the belief that it’s necessary to have women Rangers for good relations with locals? We need to reassess what “war-fighting is?” And referring to our Special Operations forces as “pack mules” – well that’s a pretty condescending perspective, isn’t it?
I’m quite sure some wimpy little leftie will take offense to what I’m about to quote — who cares. It was Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forest who stated, “War is about fighting, and fighting is about killing.”
Unfortunately we are now in an era where some — even in the military — see war being about relationship-building. Let me say something that perhaps Col. Dempsey and others do not comprehend. There are some people and places where they only understand strength and might. The best relations are built on being able to kill the enemy – which results in gaining respect, regard, and instill fear. Having women who can talk to indigenous women is not a reasonable basis for altering standards in a premier light infantry leaders course.
If anyone wants to comprehend the basis for Ranger training — just watch the film “Northwest Passage” with Spencer Tracy as Colonel Rogers who started the famed Roger’s Rangers. They weren’t pack mules, they were elite guerrilla light fighters who operated behind the lines.
Just recently members of the highly elite U.S. Army Special Operations Detachment – Delta conducted a raid into ISIS held territory. Reports were that close combat, including hand-to-hand was involved. War is hell and it’s not just about firing off a drone. Sometimes you have to look the enemy dead in the eye and shoot off his arse. This isn’t about everyone getting a trophy. This is about defeating the enemy, soundly. And I’m quite sure there are some females out there who are as tough as woodpecker lips in the wintertime.
However, one does not make policy based on exceptions.