With the Pentagon opening up the Tier 1 units to female applicants in 2015, there is a lot of issues being addressed by the male personnel in the military. The first school to open it’s doors to female soldiers will be the the US Army Ranger School at Fort Benning. The Rangers are a Tier 1 combat unit just like the US Army Special Forces and the Navy SEALs. The biggest problem with admitting females to this course or any of the other courses, is the decision to either adjust some of the requirements or leave them the same. At this time, the requirements for completion of Ranger School have not been changed and the overall thought behind this is that there will be one standard for all students no matter what their gender is.
Successful graduation from Ranger School is not guaranteed. For the males that attend the school, the attrition rate is quite high. For the females soldiers interested in attending Ranger School, the vast majority have stated that by not getting ‘tabbed’ they are not eligible for advancement. While attending Ranger School does not make one a Ranger per se, most of the graduates go on to a Ranger Battalion where they put their training to use for a number of years, getting the Ranger tab is something that does assist with advancements and promotions.
The Pentagon has mentioned that based on the results of the female candidates that successfully complete Ranger School, they might consider opening up BUD/S to female candidates. BUD/S is Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL training. This course lasts about 25 weeks or 6 months not taking into account Pre-BUD/S aka INDOC or any time taken for roll backs or waiting for the class size to reach the point that BUD/S can commence. Ranger School and BUD/S are two separate entities when it comes to training. Ranger School is 61 days and BUD/S is 6 months. Just like some aspects of Ranger School might end up adjusted so might some aspects of BUD/S if its finally agreed to open BUD/S to females. Successful graduation from BUD/S is not guaranteed no matter what gender you are.
While there are several schools of thought on allowing women into front line combat units (Tier 1), I have one little tidbit of information I’d like to pass on. Many years ago back when I was still in the big DOD machine, I was deployed to an area that was quite active but not a designated combat zone. During that time, we came under fire from mortars and RPGs. The timing couldn’t have been better. A three-man refueling team was fueling one of the large helicopters when the mortar barrage started. I grabbed two of my people and moved to the perimeter of the compound to make sure that this wasn’t a cover for hostiles to enter our area. On the way to the small gate that I wanted to secure, I stopped at the refueling team to see if they were ok and if I could get them to back me up. Imagine my surprise when I found out they were all women. The bad part of all this, besides the mortars dropping inside our perimeter and the RPGs pounding the hell out of the walls, was that this three-person refueling team had taken cover under their fuel truck. To make a bad situation worse, they had left their rifles inside the truck and were literally cowering under the flammable liquid filled vehicle, hugging each other in a near state of panic. These soldiers were not in a Tier 1 unit nor in a related combat unit. They were in a logistics/supply unit.
While this may seem that I’m picking on female soldiers, far from it. The same situation could have happened to an all male refueling team. I’m just saying that while hostile actions can occur at any time even in a relatively secure area, it doesn’t matter what gender you are, males and females can be scared into inaction equally.
Women in combat is not a new concept. The Soviet Union, now Russia, had female snipers and soldiers in what they call the Great Patriotic War and what we refer to as World War 2.
Israel has women in front line combat units but they didn’t change any standards and made very rudimentary changes to their barracks. The Israeli’s treat their female soldiers just like their males. In fact, there is the Caracal Battalion that is made up of 70% female soldiers. That battalion is a highly operational force meaning they get into the shit pretty regular and spend quite a bit of time downrange.
My personal opinion, for what little it may matter, is if a female can meet the same standards as the males in any given course, and they don’t expect any kind of special treatment, then accept them into those units.
For more information on Women being allowed into front line combat units:
Here’s a statement from a Congressional Medal of Honor winner about women in combat:
Women in foxholes
Gen. Patrick Brady says putting females in combat poses ‘an insane burden on readiness’
By Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, U.S. Army (ret.)
For many Americans, it is hard to believe that Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta could top his statement in defense of the administration’s tragic bungling of the terrorists’ massacre in Benghazi: “(The) basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place (The Obama Panetta Doctrine).” But he did top it.
In justification of the administration’s policy to put women in foxholes, he claimed that women in (direct) combat strengthen our military. His statement is a contradiction of every war we have fought and the ethos of every warrior who ever fought in those wars. But it does reflect the attitude of the commander in chief, disastrously over his head in the international arena, a “leader” unable to make tough decision who is fearful of risk and does not know the difference between a corps and a corpse. He is more comfortable around homosexuals and feminists than warriors. Panetta’s statement extolling the readiness multiplier of women leading bayonet charges is beyond the pale.
Neither Obama nor Panetta has ever served in combat, nor has most of Congress. But worse, none of the current military leadership has had any serious combat (in the trenches) experience, and it is beginning to show.
World War II was won by combat veterans from World War I. In Korea we had the veterans of World War II, and in Vietnam the combat veterans of both World War II and Korea. The Vietnam veteran won Desert Storm. All those warriors and their leadership are gone, and we see a military with dismal leadership resulting in unprecedented rates of suicide, PTSD and security breaches.
We had one high-ranking officer lament that the terrorist’s massacre at Fort Hood would damage his diversity efforts! Leadership relieved the judge in the trial of the Fort Hood terrorist for enforcing military shaving rules on the terrorist – and after over three years, he is not tried! And they are calling that obvious terrorist massacre “workplace violence,” deliberately depriving those killed and their families of deserved benefits.
Unimaginable in our past, we have leaders who consider awarding medals for not shooting, and now a medal for risking carpal tunnel syndrome that outranks the time-honored Bronze Star for valor. This gaggle actually lost graves of our warriors at Arlington Cemetery and are attacking the benefits of America’s nobility – our veterans. I don’t know where the term girlie men came from, but it perfectly describes many in this administration and their military leaders.
After commanding an all-men medical unit in combat, I commanded a medical battalion, including many women, in peacetime. These units are not direct-combat units but do spend a lot of time on the battlefield and are exposed to enemy fire and casualties. But it is nothing like the exposure of the grunts in the mud and grime for days and weeks at a time.
My rule in the battalion was standards, not gender-governed, except where they were already assigned, i.e., medics and mechanics. This was during the ’70s, a tough time for drugs and discipline in the military. Here is what I found. As a result of competition, my driver and our color guard, highly contested duty, were women. The women had less disciplinary problems than the men. In administrative jobs, they were at least equal to men. But most could not carry their load physically – loading litters in choppers, carrying wounded to safety, even lifting tool chests. As a result the men covered for them, often causing us to use two people when one should have done the job – all of which effected readiness. They were not good in the field and became less functional when issues of hygiene, and feminine hygiene, literally knocked them out and we had to jerry-rig showers, wasting valuable time.
And they got pregnant, which took out key jobs at critical times. Other sexual distractions, favoritism, fraternization and assault are also readiness disruptions and follow women throughout the military, even in our military academies. I had serious problems with wives whose husbands shared standby shacks with women overnight. This would go on for weeks in direct combat units; think tank crews. Male bonding, immeasurable to success in combat, would be damaged. All in all, the women pose an insane burden on readiness.
My conclusion, which I passed to my division commander at his request, was that I would not want females with me working the battlefield let alone in direct combat. I told him I would not want my daughters in a unit of half women going bayonet to bayonet with an enemy unit 100 percent men. Those comments almost cost me my career because my immediate superior disagreed, which may explain some of the obsequiousness and cowering of military leaders today on this issue and a quad-sexual military.
The move to teach our daughters and mothers to kill is defended using the same criteria I used in my battalion: standards, not sex-governed. It does not work. Most men will not treat women as they do other men – thankfully. And there is no intention to do so despite what we hear. Listen to our top military leader, Gen. Martin Dempsey: “If we decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high?” Those standards have been set over hundreds of years of combat! We should change them to satisfy the crazes of the president’s feminist supporters? Imagine how Gen. George Patton and all the leaders who founded and secured this country would react to those comments.
I have said, and many men agree with me, that Adam’s rib was the greatest investment in human history. Why? Because God then gave man woman, a different creature, who complemented him. God did it on purpose, and we are privileged to live with the differences. Feminists et al., get over it. It is not discrimination to accommodate God’s design; it is acknowledging His will – it is wisdom.
Despite “Kill Bill” and other Hollywood visuals of females pummeling men, women for the most part are not designed to kill. And they will not be good at it. God designed them to produce life and nurture it, not destroy it. They don’t belong in the trenches of the NFL or in the octagon in Ultimate Fighting; combat is the ultimate Ultimate Fighting – and they don’t belong there, either.
It is difficult to teach some men to kill, but they have no choice. Imagine a draft and a nation forcing our women into killing units. Visualize what will happen to women POWs, not to mention homosexuals, captured by our most likely enemies. We have heard of the man who sent his wife downstairs to check on a possible burglar (I actually knew such a man). We are becoming a nation like that man, a girlie nation. There will always be burglars, (international thugs), most of whom are male, and they should be confronted by males.
Why these ridiculous changes? No serous person could believe that women in foxholes will do anything but reduce readiness. Just as devastating is the formation of a quad-sexual military, which introduces sodomy not only to foxholes but military communities – and with it serious health and deployment issues. Pregnant females cannot deploy, and some will get pregnant to avoid it. Homosexuals cannot give blood and may not be deployable. Every warrior is a walking blood bank – who would want his son or daughter to receive a blood transfusion from a homosexual? The NBA stops a basketball game for a drop of blood because of the threat of infection, the Magic Johnson rule; Johnson had AIDS. The battlefield is full of blood. Do we think less of our soldiers than the NBA does of its players? What will be the reaction when a warrior sees his commanding officer dancing and romancing another man – or if he is hit on by a homosexual? Yet we are told these changes will improve readiness.
Sequestration, designed by President Obama, will, if allowed to kick in, emasculate what is left of our military. Aside from the cruel impact these budget cuts will have on military careers and families, they are perfectly suited to Obama’s isolationist goals. He is a rhetorical celebrity dedicated to social issues, i.e. same-sex marriage, gun control and government running just about everything. He is also a man intimidated by crises and the decisions they require. He is a voting-present leader, and we are learning he was not even present to lead during the massacre at Benghazi. He apparently hid out during the entire event and tried to blame it on a video. What would he do during a major 9/11-type crisis? An insignificant military takes us off the world stage and requires only voting present in future crises, which perfectly suits our present leadership. We can only pray there will be no such crises
Major General Patrick Brady, retired from the U.S. Army, is a recipient of the United States military’s highest decoration, The Medal of Honor.