Monday, May 11, 2015

Women Rangers

Army Rangers are elite.  Since we have women in the military, they are allowed to try out for the Rangers.  Out of 380 men and 19 women, only 115 men made it through the first round.   

Women who complete the Ranger course will be awarded a distinguished tab but will be excluded from the 75th Ranger Regiment, which remains open only to men.
The military has until January 2016 to open all combat jobs up to women or explain why they remain exclusive.
So it was just an exercise in futility and a waste of time and taxpayers' money.  

I would like to know why, as a man over 60, I am excluded from the military and all the elite units.  If I can get this pesky meniscus in my knee healed up, I guarantee I can lift more, carry more and outrun some of those women -- not all of them, like I could when I was twenty or thirty.  Now, just go through the arguments about women in the military and substitute "senior citizens" for "women".  See if our opposition to such makes any more sense. 

Women can shoot.  There is no reason I can think of that a woman can't out-shoot a man, no reason that women, on average, can't shoot as well as men, on average.  What women can't do, on average, is carry as much as men or run as fast as men or be as strong as men in general.  If soldiering were nothing except shooting then, yes, women would be fine.  It isn't.  Shooting is a relatively minor part. 

Any unit is only as strong as its weakest member or members.  When the standards are lowered and less fit, less physically capable people of either sex are allowed to pass, the efficiency and effectiveness of the unit as a whole is compromised.  Decreasing efficiency and efficacy leads to an increase in casualties.

There are some "Velasquez" women (see Aliens) who might, as the line goes, be mistaken for men, but these are relatively rare genetic anomalies. 

If we are going to use the military as a tool for social engineering then I think we might be better off getting rid of it altogether and go back to state militias.  We have to keep the Navy (with the Marines) and the Coast Guard, and we probably need a federal force to man the missile silos and something on the order of the old Strategic Air Command.  We are blowing way too much money on stupid stuff to continue in our present course. 


  1. I agree, Mush. Standards should never be lowered to fill quotas or to make people who can't meet those standards feel better about themselves.
    There are very good reasons why it's so important to be able to lift and carry a fellow soldier who is wounded to safety, as one example of many.

    Also, political correctness is bad enough, but it's even worse during a battle.
    It gets people hurt or killed. Not just the physical stuff either, but the mentality.
    We have lost good warriors because of the failed idea that we can still win hearts and minds or because of insane Rules of Engagement dreamed up by idiotic bureaucrats who have no idea what the reality is.

    The US Navy used to keep the sea lanes free, but now we don't even protect our own allies and let Iran, which still sponsers terror, pirate an allied merchant ship.

  2. You are right. They will have blood on their hands if they keep this up. And/Or the good ones will stop enlisting. I would advise the grandsons to avoid the military at this point.