The Glade 4.0

Congressional oversight is properly exercised to ensure the military is providing adequate national defense, adhering to the law, and properly expending public funrs in the process. Excessive Congressional involvement in the details is how we end up with programs like the F-35. Congressmen are not in a position to contest the techmical details of a fighter jet and when they do its invariably thinly-disguised pork barrell shennanigans to get jobs in their district. Congressmen looking into the details of how many pounds a Ranger student carries and only suddenly expressing interest when women are involved is the same blatant political pandering and likely to end in the same mess. It is terrible public policy.

Furthermore, the details of tactics, procedure, and training are the province of the executive. The courts have already ruled that such matters are not justicable inand of themselves, and there is no reason to think they are the province of Congress either. Congress has no business 'overseeing' a generals deployment of forces in actual combat, either.



No it is not a good thing, and you are not in a position to LMAO at anything. Congress has never before involved itself in the details of yhings lime training standards except insofar as to make sure other general laws are being followed (i.e. no beating Ranger candidates). For it to start examining matters like "how heavy is that ruck" rather suddenly, and only because women are there would be a blatant admission that Congress places pandering to political interests and appeasing constituencirs above our national defense. They already do that with procurement, but allowing it into training would be a hundred times worse.

Finally, your focus on things like rucksack weight indicates that you really have no idea what Ranger school or oyher similar training is really about - nor combat for that matter.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

It's in Vindicarre's link.

Successful completion of RTAC is required for all Ranger school candidates. Vindicarre's link describes the process for ALL Ranger School applicants, not just women.

_________________
"If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me." - Alice R. Longworth

"Good? Bad? I'm the guy with the gun." - Ash Williams

I understand that, but unless I'm missing something else here, RTAC is the "difficult preliminary course" referred to in that paragraph. The paragraph then says that if a woman were to go on to pass Army Ranger School after passing RTAC, she still would not be allowed to serve as a Ranger in combat, she would "just" be allowed to wear the tab. 12 women have passed RTAC, none have passed the actual Ranger School. My whole point was that the reason some of the 29 women that all flunked out of Ranger School might not be so motivated is that they're still going to be essentially second-class Rangers even if they do pass because they're still not going to be allowed to serve with actual units in combat.

I'm pretty sure it's better for Congress to have too much oversight over the military than it would be for us to have a situation like, say, South Korea where the military routinely ignores both laws and court orders that it doesn't like. To say nothing of being like Egypt where the military basically runs the country.

Not going to a Ranger unit (of which there are very few) does not make you a "Second Class Ranger". Many people - probably the majority that complete Ranger school - do not go to Ranger units. It's basically expected that all infantry officers on active duty will attempt it, and will go back for a second try if they do not pass the first.

By contrast, not everyone in a Ranger unit has been to Ranger School - it's quite common for the E1-E3s to have not gone yet, for example.

You COULD have asked some questions before making this "point" you know.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

It is, but in reality we have never had a situation where the military came even close to being that way, and far less oversight over technical details would not meaningfully bring us closer to such a situation. It would also save us a lot of money.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Strawman much? Nobody suggested Congress should get into the technical details of an F-35, nor in the training program of a ranger. What is important, in both cases, is that the military be able to explain why it is doing what it is doing. Any capable technical leader needs to be able to explain why the specifications they have put in place are important. It's the way of the world, DE. Nobody is going to keep throwing money at programs they don't understand blindly. Be prepared to explain why what you are doing is important, and why it is needed.

Further, equal treatment by the government and military readiness are two of the primary functions of the Federal government. The suggestion that Congress shouldn't take an interest in this is laughable.



LMAO. clearly, I disagree.



/sigh It's an example. The point being, of course, that the military is needs to CONSTANTLY reassess it's training programs as the recruits change, technology changes, and battlefield realities change.

You just blatantly contradicted yourself. You talk about not suggesting that Congress get involved in the details, then turn around and say that the leadership needs to be able to explain why those details are important. Those two statements can't both be true. How can a General even begin to explain why Ranger standards are what they are to Congressmen that haven't the least experience with infantry training, or in many cases, no military experience whatsoever? It would be like an engineer trying to explain why a particular piece of a bridge needs to be of a certain thickness to someone that hasn't even had high school physics yet.

If Congress wants to question why we need a Ranger program at all, that's more within their purview, but that isn't what you are suggesting and if Congress is going to call long-standing and effective training into question just because it isn't graduating enough people with vaginas, then once again, Congress is treating the military as a social program rather than a means of national defense.



Neither of these issues are at hand here. The number of female graduates from Ranger School is not a matter of military readiness, nor is the general difficulty of Ranger training. To suggest Ranger training needs to be looked at in general just and oh by the way it just so happens that women just started attending and are all failing - but really, it's about readiness is hilariously disingenuous and transparent.

As for equal treatment, as long as the Military can show that both the published standards and programs are the same for both sexes and that in practice they are actually being followed (i.e. some sergeant instructor at Ranger School isn't coming up with his own "standards" because he dislikes females, or if he has been caught doing that, that proper disciplinary procedures were followed) then equal opportunity is being observed. Equal treatment does not mean adjusting standards in order to meet the political goal of getting equal numbers of graduates from different groups, especially when there are objectively different capabilities between those groups.



Your disagreement is both obvious and completely irrelevant.



It's a largely irrelevant example that indicates unfamiliarity with the subject. That example is like citing deaths from ricochets as a reason guns are dangerous - regardless of the merits of guns, accidents do to bullets ricocheting pale in comparison to almost any other source of gun-related injury.

The main reasons people fail Ranger training, other than injury, relate to mental endurance and ability to handle multiple sources of stress all at once. Sheer physical strength is not a major determinant. More important, in both cases, it is terrible policy to change it because it is hard. In combat, the enemy does as he does. Equipment weighs what it weighs. Ranger students aren't lugging around dead weight; they're carrying actual equipment. OPFOR doesn't just do whatever it wants; it tailors its tactics to expected hostile tactics. "Maybe it's too hard" is relevant if there's indicators we are not getting returns on the money spent on Ranger School - but there are no such indicators and haven't been, and if people are claiming to just happen to discover some now that vaginas are involved, then we can dismiss those people out of hand as total idiots. If those people happen to be in Congress, they should be voted out at the earliest opportunity.

Furthermore, Ranger training (and for that matter, pretty much any other sort of training program( IS always under constant scrutiny and revision. In fact, it's far more often "too much" since every new Commander and Sergeant Major has their own things they consider important and changes they want to make for whatever reasons they have, be it pet peeves, different experiences, changes in enemy doctrine, or even just to have bullet points to cite for their own evaluation.

If you even began to understand the subject you're trying to argue about, you'd already know that.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Yes, they can. Congress should not be coming up with the specifications, but should very much be questioning why those specifications are in place.



Which I have to do all the time. (well not with bridges because I'm not a structural engineer.) I get hired by Client_01 to design X. I develop the plans, and submit the plans and specs to the client, meet with them, and explain why I'm proposing every item on the list (or as many items as the client cares about). If they don't understand, it's my job to explain its importance. The client is not going to pay the bills if I sit there and respond, "it's technical, you wouldn't understand". Furthermore, very many in Congress have a solid handle on military operations.



Congress is well within its rights to ask WHY women can't be in the ranger program. They should not set quotas or treat it like a social program - nobody's suggesting that, stop with the strawman. But they should not just tolerate a general saying, "it's technical, you wouldn't understand".



The general question of "will women in the military help, hurt, or not affect military readiness" is a question Congress should be asking at a time when woman are showing an interest. It's a question that the military should be able to respond to.



No, that falls flat. You can't just apply standards equally, you must show that the standards are necessary. If there's a particular standard that's hard/impossible for a group to meet, then that standard SHOULD be questioned. If necessary, fine. If not, change it. For example - if one of the standards is to have to hit a toilet from 5+ feet away, there's no value in that, but it excludes women. The military is going through this right now with beards. Sikhs are required by their religion to grow beards. The military does not allow this. So, this one standard is excluding an entire group. The military has been questioned, and the reason given is gas mask effectiveness (relating directly to combat readiness). While this is in dispute, if it holds up that should be the end of it. If it is shown that gas masks work fine over beards, then the standard should go (I think there are other reasons as well, but you get my point).

Why? The Generals are just going to tell them, and then they'll say "ok" because they lack the knowledge to effectively call them into question. Why should anyone waste time with this exercise?

Especially why is it important all of a sudden when women just happen to be going to Ranger school.



Very few in Congress have a solid handle on military operations; the number is rapidly dropping. Back when this WAS true, they didn't find it important to question things like specific training standards, so why should they now?

This is not like you dealing with a client. Ranger school has been there a long time. Whenever it was first established it was put into the defense budget, as required, and it could have been debated then. It could be debated in any succeeding defense budget. It never is; I have never heard of Congress callign the need for Ranger or other special operations training into question. There is no sudden need to have hearings specifically on the standards in question just because women are attending. Even if Congress can do this it is still terrible public policy for them to do so.



Women obviously can be in the Ranger program, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. That would have been a legitimate issue, but it's already resolved.



Stop using "strawman" as an excuse to hide your backpedaling. That's exactly the effect that having hearings on Ranger training standards just when the first class of women all failed would have. That's the entire reason we're having this conversation, so stop trying to coyly pretend it's about Congressional oversight. Look at the **** thread title again if you forgot.



They shouldn't be asking questions about the particulars of training requirements, period. They should especially not do so when it's an obvious fig leaf for "we want women to pass for political reasons".



The question of having women in the military is not the matter at hand. Women are already pervasive in the military and no one is suggesting changing that.



No, actually you don't. That might be a legitimate question if Ranger school were not providing an adequate number of graduates overall based on its cost, but no one has suggested that. Ranger units are not complaining of inadequate graduates, nor are other units that make heavy use of Ranger graduates.



No it shouldn't. This makes it a social program - something you already specifically denied anyone wanted it to be.



There is no indication that such transparently irrelevant standards are in place, and their theoretical possibility is not a reason to hold hearings on relevant ones. If such a standard existed, the fact that it's completely irrelevant as a criteria for Rangers is the issue, not the fact that it excludes women. Even if there were no women at Ranger school it would still be stupid.



The problem with this argument is that it's already known that gas masks and beards don't work together. That's why the standard exists. You may note that at one time, members of the military often had very impressive beards. Then chemical weapons appeared, along with gas masks. That's also about the time the military mandated shaving. Imagine that. The question was asked and answered, and there is no need for anyone to "determine" anything.



No amount of posting exasperated icons is going to help you save face. The part you skipped over - that the main reasons for failing Ranger school are inability to perform tactical tasks to standards under pressure - aren't ones easily related to differences between men and women. You latched onto this idea that maybe it's too much of a physical strength requirement and now don't want to let the idea go.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Bumping this back up:

2 of the women have finished and will be graduating this week, along with 94 of the men.

More interesting is the fact that even after they have graduated, they will not be allowed to actually try out for or join any Ranger units.

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.

Yeah I heard that. Glad they did well. I'm not sure what the whole not being allowed to join units is about.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Woman are still not allowed to be in a 'combat' roll.

_________________
Raell Kromwell

They are still in the process of determining if any particularly specialized units - such as, but not limited to Ranger Battalions - should remain off-limits to females. That process should be complete within the next year.

Both women completed the training after recycling 2 of the 3 phases. This is not uncommon, and speaks well for their perseverance. 5 months is a looooong time to be at Ranger School, although I've met people that passed after 6 months because they recycled all 3 phases.

Also, not being able to join a Ranger battalion is not some sort of waste or really anything particularly unusual. Ranger training is open to a lot of people that will never be in a Ranger Battalion. for infantry officers in particular, on active duty, if you want a battalion command you better have a Ranger tab.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

If I recall, this is dependent on service branch, and only until Jan 2016. Post Jan 2016, any specialized services still off-limits will have to have justification as to why.

The blanket ban on women in combat roles was lifted by the pentagon in 2013.

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.

Fundamentally, this is true. The 3-year gap is to give the services time to fully evaluate all types of units and make necessary changes. It's pretty unlikely that many, if any, roles will remain off-limits to women; the Army already has women in artillery and is planning to add them to armor and infantry formations. The Marines are still evaluating infantry specifically, but the Navy is talking about opening SEALS to women.

It's important to note, though, that even after January 2016 some specific assignments may remain closed to women even if they're eligible for the same assignment in other situations.

The best example is with the Navy; ships and submarines will require a certain amount of retrofitting to accommodate women. Every ship can't be retrofitted at one time, so some ships will be open to women years ahead of others; most likely this work will be done alongside other programmed overhaul work at various points in a ship's lifespan. In the case of some ships that are quite small or are nearing retirement anyhow, that particular ship may never get retrofitted because it wouldn't be cost-effective.

Particularly good examples are frigates and minesweepers; all existing examples of these types are aging and will most likely be decommissioned in the next few years. Littoral combat ships are quite small and I'm not sure if they are planned to be retrofitted. So, while women will find themselves crewing combat ships they may not find themselves on smaller, older ship variants. However if/when newer minesweepers, frigates or LCSs are produced those newer versions would be designed from the keel up with women in mind.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Yup, including some Air Force computer programmer (which seems weird, but OK) joint assignments that require completion of Airborne and Ranger schools. Didn't get picked for that one, to my wife's everlasting relief, but it's a thing.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk