Two female soldiers are the first ever to successfully complete Army Ranger School.
Capt. Kristen Griest and 1st Lt. Shaye Haver are two among the 96 students who will graduate from the Fort Benning course. Griest and Haver struggled along with the rest of the class to complete the grueling obstacles and reach their full potential, but because of their gender they will not be eligible to join the Army’s Ranger Battalion – yet.
Their class started with 381 men and 19 women, but between sleep deprivation, starvation, and intense physical and mental training and exertion, 304 soldiers dropped out.
Griest and Haver were not among them.
“This course has proven that every soldier, regardless of gender, can achieve his or her full potential,’ said Secretary of the Army John M. McHugh.
After 62 days of hell, the two women can proudly bear the title of Army Ranger. The U.S. military is still exploring what positions they want women to fill, but Griest and Haver’s accomplishments may force the brass to reconsider allowing women in more combat roles.
“This is an important moment and an important week because I see it as reality and perception catching up with each other,” said Davidson, a former U.S. Air Force aircraft commander and senior pilot. “Women have been on the front lines in Afghanistan and Iraq. … So you see policymakers in the Pentagon are ready to say, ‘We don’t see any reasons why women can’t be [in certain roles].’”
Griest and Haver are “happy and relieved, and ready for some good food and sleep,” and their families are ready to celebrate the “monumental and joyous occasions.”
(This article was a submission from freelance writer Brent Rogers)
As a combat vet of Iraq (Fallujah) and Afghanistan (KAF – large base near Kandahar) I deplore the fact that an article I read months ago showed that Officers had been ordered by the Training School CO to ensure some women passed. If I were the new DOD head I would send the strictest inspector I could find from IG to inspect the training records and all emails and other records of the Base and Training School CO’s during this period. Then I would ensure all training of women in combat roles met exactly, in all respects, the hardships of the males going through that program in the year before women were allowed.
How many of you armchair commandos have a tab? How many of you have been in combat? Women have been in combat in previous wars. The Soviets used them very effectively in WW2. I have a tab and I would rather have either of these two rangers with me in a firefight than any of you. They’ve proved what they can do. Get over it. How many of you have completed Ranger school? How many of you have even tried?
So, out of a class of 400, consisting of 381 men and 19 women, 94 males completed the course and 2 females. The male success rate was 94/381 = 24.6% and the female success rate was 2/19 = 10.5%. Had the class been all male, there would have been about 3 additional candidates graduating overall. So the net loss in qualified personnel as a result of admitting women to the program was 3 individuals (rounding). So the cost of each woman graduate was the loss of at more than one additional male graduate.
Is this a sensible use of money and resources? If you say “yes,” you’ve just won your SJW merit badge (at tax payer expense).
I think there may be some data missing from your equation to make this conclusion. Not that I am agreeing with women in combat roles. I base my belief on good old fashioned morals and male chauvinism(It is what it is). I believe in well defined gender roles. Forget this grey area that all the libs and femi-nazi’s want to cloud the issues with. A big part of our societal issues are due to women not being women and men not being men. Not to mention those who are confused about their gender all together. To have the need to do something manly to make you feel like a woman…..wait……now that doesn’t make sense, does it? Even if you take it to the basic nature level…..males have their roles and females have their roles. If one sex or the other doesn’t fulfill their role, the species suffers and may go extinct. This doesn’t mean that one sex is more or less important than the other. It’s called common sense……or male chauvinism, which ever you prefer.
Early in life, boys are wrestling. Rough housing. Girls may do it, too. But on population level averages, more boys are being rough at early ages.
It isn’t just muscle that is built. Bones strengthen. Ligaments strengthen. If a woman hadn’t dedicated decades to the underlying support structure to muscle, she’s at a major disadvantage.
So yes, you will get successful women in these fields. But their washout rate will ALWAYS be higher. Unless you can find a Sparta that trains girls the same as boys from infancy.
I’m citing medical science, not my opinion.
Forget about potentials. Forget the hypotheticals.
Look at what is ACTUALLY happening. We’re sending gay, female, transgender Jews and Christians and Sikhs into battle with rabid theocrats who want to dominate the world with their hatred. Our willingness to have women suffer greater during war by moving closer to the kinetic elements is a direct affront to the enemy. We get a propaganda advantage when women are the ones pissing on the bodies of terrorists. Men can take a break and revel in the morale boost. And yes, women can pee standing up. Especially if it means dominating the enemy on the battlefield.
Pardon my French in writing this!
I look at it from another way, yet still answered yes. I’m also very much in agreement about the impact sjws have had – America is less capable of defending itself since it succumbed to foreign intervention into our culture. That is a tangent, though.
It is better that we’re weak. Hear me out.
The less likely we’re seen as strong, capable and willing the more evil will run amok. Without it becoming a bloody mess, sjws will keep us from defending freedom. When it gets bad enough to SHUT up sjws, even transgender gay pregnant Jewish black pagan atheists will join up and shoot straight.
But it has to get a lot worse. A lot.