Feminists Smell Final Victory in Their War on the American Military

By Nicholas Stix

[Previously, at WEJB/NSU:

“Claire, the Lean, Mean, Killing Machine: This Woman’s Army.”]

According to the Pentagon’s own research, the average man has 81.8 percent more upper-body strength than the average female, more speed, more stamina, more agility, more everything. And women can’t carry a wounded comrade to safety. As I wrote nine years ago,

And so, instead of real basic training, women get a sex-normed Mommy-track, with a fraction of the rigorous exercises the men do, lighter packs, and only having to practice hand-to-hand combat against other women. That training regimen ought to come in handy, for when America fights an army of women.

As Fred Reed wrote in 2002, citing Pentagon research,

“In terms of physical capability, the upper five percent of women are at the level of the male median. The average 20-to-30 year-old woman has the same aerobic capacity as a 50 year-old man....

“Using the standard Army Physical Fitness Test, [Lt. Col. William Gregor, U.S. Army] found that the upper quintile of women at West point achieved scores on the test equivalent to the bottom quintile of men.

“Only 21 women out of the initial 623 (3.4%) achieved a score equal to the male mean score of 260.

“On the push-up test, only seven percent of women can meet a score of 60, while 78 percent of men exceed it.

“Adopting a male standard of fitness at West Point would mean 70 percent of the women he studied would be separated as failures at the end of their junior year, only three percent would be eligible for the Recondo badge, and not one would receive the Army Physical Fitness badge.”

Women do not belong in combat on the ground, the sea, or in the air. Feminists have turned the American military into the world’s most expensive welfare program, and have already turned it into an organization that cannot beat any major foe.

Stephen Kilcullen writes,

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.

Those battalion staffs are where the takeover and installation of the matriarchy will take place. Can you say “sexual harassment lawsuits”? Before you know it, you will have incompetent feminists suing their way up the ladder, pushing competent men out of the service altogether, with the help of their political supporters, and the only men left in the general officer corps will be pathetic, feminized weenies, who will support the he-women. Strike that—that’s already the reality.

* * *Women Don't Belong in Ranger School
By Stephen Kilcullen
Updated June 12, 2012, 7:19 p.m. ET
Wall Street Journal
Comments (229)

Do individuals serve the military or does the military serve them?

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.

A version of this article appeared June 13, 2012, on page A13 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Women Don't Belong in Ranger School.