Women in combat

[EgonSpengler]

So two women have officially completed the U.S. Army's Ranger School at Fort Benning.

Their names haven't been released, but I heard on the radio that the women are both Lieutenants. As of now, the women will be awarded the insignia that shows they graduated the program, but they aren't eligible to join the 75th Ranger Regiment due to gender exclusions from combat units. The Defense Department is expected to rule on whether women can join these units sometime this year, so the women may yet become active duty Rangers.

381 men and 19 women started the program this year; 94 men and the 2 women completed it. A 3rd woman is eligible to repeat one portion of the program and could still graduate (I don't know how many men are also in that position).

The Rangers are one of the US military's premiere combat units. They are a light infantry regiment operating under the Special Operations Command, so they are among the units that can expect to see some action even when the US military is not heavily involved in a large-scale action such as the invasions of Iraq & Afghanistan. For example, Rangers participated in the capture of Mohammad Aidid in Somalia in 1992, made famous by the book and film "Blackhawk Down."

So this is the real deal. These women won't be piloting helicopters, military police, or in medical units. They won't be pulling triggers because their unit was attacked, or because "there is no front line anymore." In a 'low intensity' conflict, they'll be rappelling out of helicopters and kicking in doors, such as in the Battle of Mogadishu. In a 'hot' war, they'll be undertaking unusually difficult or especially pivotal jobs, such as scaling the cliffs at Point du Hoc in Normandy.

What do you think? Are we ready for this? Are you ready for this? If your daughter, niece, sister or girlfriend said she wanted to be a Ranger, what might you say? If you're a woman who's been in the service, or ever thought about serving, would you consider it? If men have a hangup, is that reason enough to delay gender integration, or do guys just need to grow up and get over it?

 

[Formaldehyde]

So this is the real deal. These women won't be piloting helicopters, military police, or in medical units. They won't be pulling triggers because their unit was attacked, or because "there is no front line anymore." In a 'low intensity' conflict, they'll be rappelling out of helicopters and kicking in doors, such as in the Battle of Mogadishu. In a 'hot' war, they'll be undertaking unusually difficult or especially pivotal jobs, such as scaling the cliffs at Point du Hoc in Normandy.

The women completed the course like hundreds of men do each year. But only a few of them become Rangers. This is just the very first step.

So it's not the "real deal" at all. It is an insignia they will proudly wear on their dress uniforms. Now they will return to their units like most of the other graduates, while people debate endlessly whether or not they should be even given the opportunity to become Rangers.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

My only hangup with women in combat has always been that IMO they need to pass all of the same physical requirements as the men. I've never been in the military so that this for what it's worth (nothing), but if I was in combat, I need to know that if I get shot the person standing next to me is going to be physically strong enough to drag my ass to safety. As long as the standards aren't lowered for them to make it happen, though, I see absolutely no problem with it.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

I dont know if men could react the same way seeing a fellow female soldier badly injured or in danger. May lead male soldiers to do silly things while in combat.

 

[EgonSpengler]

The women completed the course like hundreds of men do each year. But only a few of them become Rangers. This is just the very first step.

So it's not the "real deal" at all. It is an insignia they will proudly wear on their dress uniforms. Now they will return to their units like most of the other graduates, while people debate endlessly whether or not they should be even given the opportunity to become Rangers.

Okay. The article I read and the radio program I heard omitted that, and made it sound as though graduates of the program normally went straight into the regiment. It wouldn't be the first time an article or radio show missed something, though (I remember a radio program a little while ago repeatedly referring to a Black Hawk as an Apache...). Anyway, that's not really the point of my post. The "real deal" I was referring to was the fact that Rangers aren't a unit that gets into combat by accident or by circumstance, or simply to defend themselves, they're an aggressive unit that gets sent on combat missions, often difficult or important ones, and not only as part of what might normally be called a 'war.'

EDIT: Okay, CNN's article is a little clearer. It says "Unlike the male graduates, the two women can't apply to join the 75th Ranger Regiment, an elite special operations force." So the implication there is that the 94 men aren't guaranteed of getting into the unit, but the 2 women can't even apply yet.

My only hangup with women in combat has always been that IMO they need to pass all of the same physical requirements as the men. I've never been in the military so that this for what it's worth (nothing), but if I was in combat, I need to know that if I get shot the person standing next to me is going to be physically strong enough to drag my ass to safety. As long as the standards aren't lowered for them to make it happen, though, I see absolutely no problem with it.

What I heard and read, the requirements weren't lowered for the women in this case.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I was a little slow with the OP: USA Today has identified the women, Capt. Kristen Griest, an MP from Orange, CT and 1st Lt. Shaye Haver, a helicopter pilot from Copperas Cove, TX.

(MP = military police, not member of parliament. )

 

[BenitoChavez]

I don't see why not. If the women are able to perform all the tasks required of an Army Ranger then they should be allowed to be Army Rangers. If the Defense Department rules that they can't join, what's the point of them even taking the test?

 

[Formaldehyde]

The "point" is that many take the course but few become Rangers. Part of the reason is because they take the course merely to see if they can pass it and have no ambition at all to become Rangers. Part of it is that they pass the course but they don't pass all the other requirements, or they are not accepted after the extensive interview process. This is just the first step for those who want to become Rangers.

 

[onejayhawk]

I distinctly recall an attractive 25ish woman talking in the chow hall. Over lunch, she was describing seeing a 50 caliber round take the arm off an insurgent she had in her sights. Girls can hack it.

The biggest reason for holding women out of combat has always been the potential of rape if captured. That IMO is their call.

J

 

[Formaldehyde]

I distinctly recall an attractive 25ish woman talking in the chow hall. Over lunch, she was describing seeing a 50 caliber round take the arm off an insurgent she had in her sights. Girls can hack it.

What does that possibly have to do with being a Ranger?

The biggest reason for holding women out of combat has always been the potential of rape if captured. That IMO is their call.

Men can't be raped like so many victims in Abu Ghraib were by US soldiers?

 

[JollyRoger]

I dont know if men could react the same way seeing a fellow female soldier badly injured or in danger. May lead male soldiers to do silly things while in combat.

Attempt to screen for that before allowing a male into the unit. Mental and emotional toughness should be considered alongside physical toughness.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

What I heard and read, the requirements weren't lowered for the women in this case.

Then I have absolutely no problem with letting them in whatsoever, but again, I've never been in the military (epilepsy, as it turns out, disqualifies you) so other people who have may have a more valuable perspective.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Again, the only requirement is not passing this initial test. There are numerous others.

If the female is quantitatively just as qualified as the males who are Rangers, I would agree with you. But that also really means that women should be able to compete head-to-head in basically any Olympic track and field event with men, because these are supposedly elite soldiers who are top athletes. Rangers are the top few percent of all soldiers in the military in terms of physical abilities.

Do you really think that is true? Or are there substantial physical differences between men and women which would not allow them to be able to carry as much weight, or run and swim just as fast? Differences in lung capacity which would not allow them to stay underwater for the same length of time?

 

[JollyRoger]

A female Olympic sprinter would be able to beat a male Olympic marathoner in a sprint and a female Olympic marathoner would be able to beat a male Olympic sprinter in a marathon. Elite soldiering has a mix of skillsets, so it is very possible that a female is elite enough in her overall mix of skills. If they met the baseline qualifications, they should be given a shot at the Rangers.

 

[EnglishEdward]

The Nazis had male only armies.

By 1945 1/4 of the Red Army were female and
they overrun the Nazis and captured Berlin.

And a lot of those ladies were in front line units.

 

[CavLancer]

As long as they don't lower the bar for the women or lower the bar for everyone if women are involved. No point sending them in to boost their egos if they create a burden for the other troops.

However if they can do the job the same as anyone else they should get in same as anyone else.

There may still be one problem. I read ages ago that before the deployment to Iraq a statistically very high percentage of women soldiers got pregnant and couldn't be deployed. If these women had been in combat units it could have led to the deaths of men they trained with. If a person who trains with a unit drops out and an untrained person takes their place the dangers can be significant. Particularly with a special forces unit, these folks train constantly until they can do their job under any conditions, even in the dark. I'm sure there are women out there who could do the job as well, but if they decide to try to get pregnant to avoid a deployment then the unit is endangered.

So I think they should have to agree to a sex change.

 

[Formaldehyde]

A female Olympic sprinter would be able to beat a male Olympic marathoner in a sprint and a female Olympic marathoner would be able to beat a male Olympic sprinter in a marathon. Elite soldiering has a mix of skillsets, so it is very possible that a female is elite enough in her overall mix of skills. If they met the baseline qualifications, they should be given a shot at the Rangers.

That is a valid point. But what we are really talking about here are decathletes who can compete well in a number of different events, instead of excel in just one or two.

Again, if they can do as well as men who are currently Rangers I agree. There certainly shouldn't be any other valid reason to keep them out. And there are a large number of reasons why women would be far more ideal in a multitude of situations.

So I think they should have to agree to a sex change.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Again, the only requirement is not passing this initial test. There are numerous others.

If the female is quantitatively just as qualified as the males who are Rangers, I would agree with you. But that also really means that women should be able to compete head-to-head in basically any Olympic track and field event with men, because these are supposedly elite soldiers who are top athletes. Rangers are the top few percent of all soldiers in the military in terms of physical abilities.

Do you really think that is true? Or are there substantial physical differences between men and women which would not allow them to be able to carry as much weight, or run and swim just as fast? Differences in lung capacity which would not allow them to stay underwater for the same length of time?

I'm quite sure that there are such physical differences, I've been vocal elsewhere in my support of the idea that there ARE physical, mental, and emotional differences between the genders and that those realities have to be accepted in order for progress on gender equality to happen. But I'm also sure those differences are statistical averages that will not apply to every person as an individual and that there will be women on the far end of the bell curve that are perfectly capable of matching all of the physical requirements. If that be the case then there's no reason not to let them try for the rangers if they want to while accepting that due to those statistical averages they will always be a minority in that group.

 

[CavLancer]

Men and women are different.

 

[JollyRoger]

So I think they should have to agree to a sex change.

Are you offering them a trade?