Women Don't Belong in Ranger School - Stephen Kilcullen

scoutpilot

10-Year Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2010
Messages
4,479
Interesting read...

The United States Army is debating whether to admit women to Ranger School, its elite training program for young combat leaders. Proponents argue this is to remove a final impediment to the careers of Army women. But the move would erode the unique Ranger ethos and culture—not to mention the program's rigorous physical requirements—harming its core mission of cultivating leaders willing to sacrifice everything for our nation.

The Army's 75th Ranger Regiment traces its roots back to World War II, when it won acclaim for penetrating deep behind Japanese lines. Founded in 1950, Ranger School teaches combat soldiers small-unit tactics and leadership under extreme duress. It pushes men harder than any other program in the Army's curriculum.

Competition to attend the course is fierce, with about 4,000 men eligible to attend each year. Only about half graduate. Of those, only 20% make it through without having to retake various phases. For decades, completion of Ranger School has been the best indicator for determining which young men can handle the enormous responsibility of combat leadership.

The Ranger School debate is upon us because the Army is considering whether to overturn regulations excluding women from infantry battalions. This is part of a broader trend in the U.S. military. The Air Force allowed women to serve as combat pilots at the start of the first Gulf War in 1991. Following suit, the Navy in 2010 embarked on a taxpayer-funded retrofit of its submarines to accommodate 10-20 women in its submarine force each year. Now the Navy finds itself embroiled in controversy surrounding its process for determining their suitability.

Army women are not currently allowed to serve in frontline squads, platoons or rifle companies. But they can serve on battalion staffs: groups of 10 to 15 headquarters personnel who coordinate the actions of the smaller units in the organization. These roles do not involve small-unit combat leadership, tactics or direct combat—core aspects of the infantry mission. Ranger School develops those men best suited for precisely this infantry mission.

"Ninety-percent of our senior [infantry] officers are Ranger qualified," Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno recently said. "If we determine that we're going to allow women to go into infantry and be successful, they're probably at some time going to have to go to Ranger School."

But does changing the fabric of the military culture to improve the odds of individual achievement make sense for the military? Do individuals serve the military or does the military serve them? Remember, this is an all-volunteer force.

Ranger School isn't about improving the career prospects of individual candidates. Our motto is "Rangers lead the way." Many a Ranger has lived these words before being killed in action—certain that if a Ranger couldn't accomplish the mission, nobody could. This unique culture lures the kind of young, smart soldiers needed to get the toughest jobs done. The promise of something bigger than oneself—bigger than any career track—is what motivates these men.

It is this culture of excellence and selflessness that attracts young men to the Ranger brotherhood. The Ranger ethos is designed to be deadly serious yet self-deprecating, focused entirely on teamwork and mission accomplishment. Rangers put the mission first, their unit and fellow soldiers next, and themselves last. The selfishness so rampant elsewhere in our society has never existed in the Ranger brotherhood.

And that is the secret of the brotherhood's success. Some call it "unit cohesiveness" but what they are really describing is a transition from self-interest to selfless service. The notion of allowing women into Ranger School because denying them the experience would harm their careers makes Ranger graduates cringe. Such politically correct thinking is the ultimate expression of the "me" culture, and it jeopardizes core Ranger ideals.

The military has changed many policies in recent years, based on individual self-interest masquerading as fairness and antidiscrimination. As we debate new policies, decision makers need to ask two simple questions: Is a proposed move good for the majority of service members? And does it improve or hinder our ability to execute our mission?

After all, the military does not exist to provide careers. It is a responsibility, a way of life and a higher calling that only 1% of our citizens choose to follow. A top-notch fighting force composed of dedicated and strong men who are the very best at what they do is what defines our armed forces—and the Rangers as among their best. Let's not destroy this small but incredibly important culture under the banner of "me."

Mr. Kilcullen was commissioned in 1993 from Vanderbilt ROTC and is a Ranger School graduate. He served as an officer in light, mechanized and mountain infantry before leaving the Army in 2004.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303830204577448821376681662.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
 
As a complete outsider to both the Army and Ranger school but as someone experienced in leadership challenges in a totally physically and mentally exhausting environment, I only have one observation/question. Are the physical and mental challenges inherent to Ranger School the desired end results or are they simply a method of preparing the students to participate in the more demanding leadership exercises? And if they are a means, rather than an end, and men and women are physically different, would it be detrimental to the overall mission accomplishment if there were different methods to prep them for these leadership exercises?
 
Mr. Kilcullen makes some good points. (IMHO, he also makes a bad point in his thought piece when he brings up the "mission first, team next, self last" discussion into his argument. A female Ranger won't be able to feel this way as well?)

But ultimately it doesn't matter. It's going to happen anyway, whether current or former Rangers like it or not. The real leadership challenge here for the Ranger community is to incorporate women into their ranks while ensuring the least impact to the mission.

They're Rangers. I KNOW they'll find a way....
 
Well IMPO, if women are allowed to go to ranger school then they should be held to the same standards as the men. The attrition rate will be high, but those who forge through the course with the men would be able to show that "we do not need different standards just because we are atomically built differently"

Article: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/06/army-female-sappers-forge-path-women-combat-062412/

Quote: “I think it is absolutely imperative that … absolutely nothing changes about the standard of performance,” Hannenberg said. “If you at all cheapen the value of that tab in the eyes of anyone who’s earned it or who earns it in the future, you are doing a great disservice to the legacy of the Rangers and to the legacy of women.”

Earning the Ranger tab “won’t mean a thing” if women are allowed to earn it under lower standards, she said.

In the Sapper Leader Course, “there has been no change to the expected performance of graduates,” she said. “In Sapper school, the [physical training] test is the male, 17-21 [years old] standard regardless of what is between your legs.”
 
Well IMPO, if women are allowed to go to ranger school then they should be held to the same standards as the men. The attrition rate will be high, but those who forge through the course with the men would be able to show that "we do not need different standards just because we are atomically built differently"

Article: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/06/army-female-sappers-forge-path-women-combat-062412/

Quote: “I think it is absolutely imperative that … absolutely nothing changes about the standard of performance,” Hannenberg said. “If you at all cheapen the value of that tab in the eyes of anyone who’s earned it or who earns it in the future, you are doing a great disservice to the legacy of the Rangers and to the legacy of women.”

Earning the Ranger tab “won’t mean a thing” if women are allowed to earn it under lower standards, she said.

In the Sapper Leader Course, “there has been no change to the expected performance of graduates,” she said. “In Sapper school, the [physical training] test is the male, 17-21 [years old] standard regardless of what is between your legs.”

It's a nice sentiment that reads well in an article, but the political realities of it are much tougher. I can foresee the pressures on an RI who fails the first female for poor pushup form being unreal.
 
Mr. Kilcullen makes some good points. (IMHO, he also makes a bad point in his thought piece when he brings up the "mission first, team next, self last" discussion into his argument. A female Ranger won't be able to feel this way as well?)

But ultimately it doesn't matter. It's going to happen anyway, whether current or former Rangers like it or not. The real leadership challenge here for the Ranger community is to incorporate women into their ranks while ensuring the least impact to the mission.

They're Rangers. I KNOW they'll find a way....

That wasn't what the author meant by that. He was trying to show that if the primary reason women would be allowed into Ranger School is for political correctness rather than to aid in better accomplishing the mission, that is wrong. The author didn't state that women couldn't serve selflessly.
 
Scoutpilot has this right.

Ranger School isn't about "mission" or "selfless service" or any of the rest- if it were clearly there would be no issue with women attending. It isn't really even a tactical school. It is a leadership school for small unit infantry leaders (and others when there are slots available) and it teaches two things: How to function and lead small units under the most grueling conditions; and teamwork taught through equally shared hardships over a long period of time. Anyone can make it through an intense but shortlived experience- but the 61 days that Ranger school lasts takes you past the point of your initial reserves and drives the entire group to near breaking. The weak links get weeded out intentionally.

I'm pretty sure that the concern that Scoutpilot is expressing is that the Army has a tendency to almost never "fail" a politically ordained test. It determines what the desired outcome is and then achieves it. So what was failure, suddenly becomes acceptable because the outcome will be undesirable. (The Army differs from the USMC in that way more than any other- The Army would never have produced an Al Gray as Chief of Staff - yet he was the iconic Marine Commandant from the mid 1980's and was a guy who had no problem saying that something was bad for his Marines- regardless of how politically incorrect it was to say so. I can't even imagine an Army Chief of Staff ever doing that.) I think virtually everyone would say that there is no inherent reason why women can't attend Ranger School or for that matter serve as Infantry soldiers, and a relatively small % will successfully complete the course it as now configured. But I am pretty sure that what Scoutpilot is articulating is that there is going to be an immense amount of pressure to ensure no only that Women attend Ranger School, but complete it in roughly the same rates that men do now. And the only way that is going to happen is going to be if they gender norm the course- at which point the entire point of the course will have been missed. I could of course be wrong- but I'm pretty sure that I can hear the arguments already being made: "women are physically different than men, so it would not be fair to judge them by the same standards- it would be more fair to establish standards that are relatively the same as a proportion of their physical capabilities".

Now that sounds fair right up until you notice that the little 5'4" 140 lb guy carrying the M60 machine gun or the Mortar base plate is putting out far more than the 6'4" 225 lb guy carrying the same thing. Ranger School is designed to simulate the stresses of small unit Infantry combat by putting the same load on everyone. But if history and common sense is a judge, that is likely to produce some pretty unequal tabbing %. So - as Scoutpilot alluded to- imagine how much pressure the RI's will be under to get an acceptable outcome. It certainly appears that this is going to happen though. So it will be interesting to see in what direction the Army goes, though history gives you a pretty good indication of how it will accommodate inherent physical differences.
 
Scoutpilot has this right.

Ranger School isn't about "mission" or "selfless service" or any of the rest- if it were clearly there would be no issue with women attending. It isn't really even a tactical school. It is a leadership school for small unit infantry leaders (and others when there are slots available) and it teaches two things: How to function and lead small units under the most grueling conditions; and teamwork taught through equally shared hardships over a long period of time. Anyone can make it through an intense but shortlived experience- but the 61 days that Ranger school lasts takes you past the point of your initial reserves and drives the entire group to near breaking. The weak links get weeded out intentionally.

I'm pretty sure that the concern that Scoutpilot is expressing is that the Army has a tendency to almost never "fail" a politically ordained test. It determines what the desired outcome is and then achieves it. So what was failure, suddenly becomes acceptable because the outcome will be undesirable. (The Army differs from the USMC in that way more than any other- The Army would never have produced an Al Gray as Chief of Staff - yet he was the iconic Marine Commandant from the mid 1980's and was a guy who had no problem saying that something was bad for his Marines- regardless of how politically incorrect it was to say so. I can't even imagine an Army Chief of Staff ever doing that.) I think virtually everyone would say that there is no inherent reason why women can't attend Ranger School or for that matter serve as Infantry soldiers, and a relatively small % will successfully complete the course it as now configured. But I am pretty sure that what Scoutpilot is articulating is that there is going to be an immense amount of pressure to ensure no only that Women attend Ranger School, but complete it in roughly the same rates that men do now. And the only way that is going to happen is going to be if they gender norm the course- at which point the entire point of the course will have been missed. I could of course be wrong- but I'm pretty sure that I can hear the arguments already being made: "women are physically different than men, so it would not be fair to judge them by the same standards- it would be more fair to establish standards that are relatively the same as a proportion of their physical capabilities".

Now that sounds fair right up until you notice that the little 5'4" 140 lb guy carrying the M60 machine gun or the Mortar base plate is putting out far more than the 6'4" 225 lb guy carrying the same thing. Ranger School is designed to simulate the stresses of small unit Infantry combat by putting the same load on everyone. But if history and common sense is a judge, that is likely to produce some pretty unequal tabbing %. So - as Scoutpilot alluded to- imagine how much pressure the RI's will be under to get an acceptable outcome. It certainly appears that this is going to happen though. So it will be interesting to see in what direction the Army goes, though history gives you a pretty good indication of how it will accommodate inherent physical differences.

You said it far more eloquently than I did.

I think we all know how the Army will handle. Deciding that women will attend Ranger is, in real "Army" terms, a decision will graduate from Ranger. The institutional gerrymandering that needs to occur for that to be assured is a given.

As for you comment about the difference between USMC and Army generals, you're dead right. The average Army general, I'm sad to say, is a careerist first. It's a cancer, as I've said before. The system is in desperate need of leaders who eschew the "star club" culture of those we've served under.
 
I guess the real question is are they testing general fitness or simulating combat stresses? If you want to gender norm for fitness testing, that makes some sense. Gender norming doesn't make sense for combat conditions.
 
Bribing and scout, u r dead on balls accurate. This goes beyond the simple: if women can meet the same exact standards, then there shouldn't be a problem. The problem is: this is.and will be political, and as such, the standards will change. And if the standards change, so will the purpose and desired outcome. The politicians won't allow only 10% or whatever of women to pass the course. They will want the same 40-50% or whatever the men are currently passing at. The only way for that to happen because of physical requirement, is to either lower the standards or to hope that a very small number of women apply, and they are capable. Then, if that happens, the army will do what they do with diversity and try and recruit a higher number of women. Which will then result in a low percentage of passing, so they will lower the standard to achieve the numbers they want. But again, that destroys the meaning and purpose of the training.
 
The question with physical standards, IMO, is always: Are they designed to measure fitness/stamina, etc. or are they necessary to accomplish the mission?

If the latter (accomplish the mission), everyone should be held to the same standard. If women can't meet that standard, they should not be allowed to graduate b/c they are a potential detriment to the mission.

If the purpose is to demonstrate fitness, the standards for women in certain areas (e.g., time for runs) should be different b/c of innate differences in physiology. There's a reason men & women don't compete against each other in track & field events in the Olympics or elsewhere, yet few who would claim that female champions are not as "fit" as their male counterparts.

I don't know the purpose behind the Ranger standards. My guess (and it's only that), is they're a combination of both fitness and service needs. Which makes it all the more complicated, sad to say.

But, as a woman, I wouldn't want to see standards relaxed solely so women can pass. I want standards to be fair for both genders . . . and that apparently is harder to achieve than it seems.
 
bruno; I apologize for my previous post. I meant to type BRUNO and SCOUT, but I was using my android and "Auto Spell" kicked in and wrote "Bribing" instead of Bruno. I don't think you're bribing anyone. LOL!!! Gotta love androids and their auto spell feature. Sorry again.
 
bruno; I apologize for my previous post. I meant to type BRUNO and SCOUT, but I was using my android and "Auto Spell" kicked in and wrote "Bribing" instead of Bruno. I don't think you're bribing anyone. LOL!!! Gotta love androids and their auto spell feature. Sorry again.

Should have gotten an iPhone. :shake:

I was a little confused when I read an article on the Army Times site that said the reasoning for women being allowed in Ranger School was because 90% of the top ranking officers are tabbed. As Scout said before with the careerist mentality, it seems like a shoddy reason to change up a 60+ year tradition in order to help check off the box for someone's promotion ladder.....
 
This is the direct quote from Gen Odierno:
Well, I don't want to get ahead of myself, OK? So -- let me give you some statistics, OK? So as we look at our senior infantry officers, about 90 percent of our senior infantry officers are ranger-qualified. So if we determine that we're going to allow women to go in the infantry and be successful, they are probably at some time going to have to go through Ranger School. We have not made that decision yet, but it's a factor that I have asked them to take a look at and, again, to come back to us as we look at this problem. We have to look at the all-encompassing problem that we have in terms of if we decide to do this, we want to -- we want the women to be successful, and how do we make them most successful. And that's what we've asked them to do, to gather data, come back to us so the secretary and I can chart a way forward.
This was not an announcement but an answer to a question - the transcript is here:
http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=5034

If you read it carefully, it is a simple "if, then" statement - even if "then" is not in the transcript, it's implied.
If females are allowed to go into the infantry and be successful (then) they are probably going to have to be allowed to go to Ranger school.

This has nothing to do with lowering standards or destroying the brotherhood. It is a simple logical progression.
The reason for females having the opportunity to attend Ranger school is the same as for male infantry soldiers - to help them be successful at their job.

Females attend other school and are required to attain the same standard and their male counterparts - including Sapper school.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/06/army-female-sappers-forge-path-women-combat-062412/

The burning question is ..... if Ranger school was opened to females AND the standards were the same as for male soldiers are you in favor or opposed?
 
Just_A_Mom said:
Well, I don't want to get ahead of myself, OK? So -- let me give you some statistics, OK? So as we look at our senior infantry officers, about 90 percent of our senior infantry officers are ranger-qualified. So if we determine that we're going to allow women to go in the infantry and be successful, they are probably at some time going to have to go through Ranger School. We have not made that decision yet, but it's a factor that I have asked them to take a look at and, again, to come back to us as we look at this problem. We have to look at the all-encompassing problem that we have in terms of if we decide to do this, we want to -- we want the women to be successful, and how do we make them most successful. And that's what we've asked them to do, to gather data, come back to us so the secretary and I can chart a way forward.

You bolded the wrong part. Freudian slip? Or just blatant reality?

Oh, the senior leaders will surely make them successful. General Officer promotions are built on as much.

The real burning question isn't whether anyone is opposed to it. Asking if I'd be "for" it if the military could make every standard the same is like asking if I'd be in favor of cold fusion. Neither has been proven possible. Sure, you can point to Sapper school, but there are two important distinctions: 1. Sapper and Ranger are not comparable (ask anyone who knows what Sapper stands for) and 2. Sapper school is NOT a career-defining school. Men and women routinely rise to the top of the branch without the Sapper tab. In fact, until about 6 years ago, the tab wasn't even authorized for wear. Not so with the Ranger tab. So when only 1 out of 50 women can pass a career-defining school built to tax the male infantry officer beyond his body's breaking point, what's going to change? The women? Or the school?

The burning question is whether there is any value added for the mission or the military in forcing MOS's to take women. What's the benefit? Just once I want to hear someone actually articulate what the benefit to the force would be. Someone tell me how women in the infantry across the Army and USMC would make either force more effective. (Excluded reasons include "diversity" and "fairness.")

Diversity for diversity's sake is a self-licking ice cream cone.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure at some point someone will bring up the fact that diversity for diversity's sake was just one of the arguments against African Americans being allowed to serve in the Regular Army. Just want to go on record that that argument doesn't apply here since back then the military was arguing skin color and not gender. Skin color had no bearing on strength and ability to complete the training on an even scale.

The Coast Guard is allowing women to train as Rescue Swimmers, they are required to complete the course with the same standards as the men, as it should be with all training in these physically demanding jobs.

There is already grumbling even at ROTC when a female cadet boasts a 300 APFT that for a male would be a 224. I can't imagine what the grumbling at Ranger school.
 
Has anyone seen an army poll or study actually showing the calculated numbers representing women who would actually WANT to attend the school? I don't think anyone here in this day and age could formulate an argument to exclude women just because they are women but how does does allowing women in Ranger School further aid the US Army in accomplishing it's goals and missions for the near and distant future. Besides all the PC diversity and equal opportunity PowerPoints what are the strategic implications for making this radical change. Is the change worth all of the alterations that probably will occur within the course (privacy, hygiene etc.) Can the standards be upheld when a 110 lb women is tasked to carry 100 lbs of gear throughout Kms of night ops with no sleep or breaks? From what I know of the school ( two cadre were career 75th NCOs) it is a gut check and leadership course intertwined into one to push a man to his limits. It will be really interesting to see what they plan to do with this adjustment in the coming years.
 
I'm sure the kind of women who run Ironman triathlons for fun could make it through. That said, that will likely be low numbers, especially at first.

If you can do the job, want the job, and there are slots available, there is no reason you shouldn't be able to.
 
how does does allowing women in Ranger School further aid the US Army in accomplishing it's goals and missions for the near and distant future.
For the military to have the absolute best quality available personne, the base must include as many diverse groups as possible, within reason. Any time any of these diverse groups have a glass ceiling imposed upon them, it will discourage careers, especially for the "best and brightest". This will have a negative impact on military readiness.
 
Bottom line:

1. If currently, 50% of all men who try for Rangers makes it, then that will be the percentage that the army will want for women. If by chance, women can't pass Ranger training at the 50% (Or whatever the rate men are passing it at) success rate, then the army WILL LOWER the standards.

2. Anyone who thinks Ranger training is mainly a leadership stepping stone for career progression and doesn't have significant operational and wartime purpose, doesn't understand and simply sees the political side.

If the army wants to reevaluate how they select their top leadership, and readdress that 90% of top tier leadership have ranger training, then that's fine. But training standards for anything should not be lowered for political reasons. Especially political correctness and bogus diversity. Caveat: Training standards need to be practical and for a purpose, and not to intentionally be used to eliminate certain candidates. But if the training has a practical purpose, then there shouldn't be any lowering of the standards. If you don't make it; too bad. And if that means no women can succeed in the rangers (Unlikely; I'm sure many will); then so be it. But if there's reasons for the training, then don't lower the standards just to reach your politically correct numbers.

Diversity is a wonderful thing. It has too many benefits that doesn't need to be mentioned again. But diversity for "Political Reasons" is pure B.S. Just like Affirmative Actions was B.S., so is diversity for political sake.
 
Back
Top