...she lost a member of the platoon. In fact, the missing soldier was so thoroughly separated from the rest of his platoon that the RIs had to shut down the entire mission, telling the platoon to go to sleep where they were while the RIs searched for the missing candidate. The platoon never had the chance even to attempt its assigned mission. But the candidate who had served as platoon sergeant, despite a failure in her performance that ended the mission, received a passing grade.This was, remember, the third attempt for these three would-be Rangers; they'd already failed out twice before. On the third go-round, word came down that they were to be passed even in spite of massive and potentially fatal errors.
...
Ranger Instructor 1: Female got a “go” last night. I was out there. She shouldn’t have. But it happened and [redacted]
Ranger Instructor 2: Why did she get a go then?
Ranger Instructor 1: I was out there until actions on [that is, the raid or ambush the platoon was supposed to conduct]. Never happened because they missed their hit time. 1SG recocked them [that is, reset the mission conditions and gave them the chance to start over]. That never happened because she gave abad head count three times. We finally realized their [sic] was a missing student.
Ranger Instructor 1: Had to lock the [platoon] down and find this kid.
Ranger Instructor 3: That’s a definite go haha
...
Ranger Instructor B: It’s all [b*******]. On 8-35 [the mission they were on], they walk [sic] the road back into camp under RI control [that is, RIs took over from the candidate leadership and led the platoon to its destination on an open road rather than through the woods]
Ranger Instructor B: And lost a Ranger
...
An RI with firsthand knowledge of the candidate’s evaluation explains, “During clearance of the [objective], she lost control of her squad, leading to fratricide” (i.e. leading to what would have been a friendly-fire incident if live rounds were being used in a non-training environment.) Understandably, this normally earns a failing grade (an “immediate no-go”). But it didn’t here.
The author adds, "It is important to emphasize that those whom I interviewed expressed admiration for the graduating females’ grit and perseverance and were not critical of the female candidates’ character or commitment. The officers and enlisted soldiers I spoke to uniformly respected the female candidates’ efforts and willingness to put themselves through the rigors of Ranger training."
That said, standards were suppressed -- and critics were silenced -- in order to obtain politically correct results. This will have deadly results eventually, which is why the training is so severe. As you will recall, the Marine Corps' study was similarly ignroed, and they were forced to proceed in spite of the clear findings.
10 comments:
Results don't matter, only intentions.
It seems to me that the honorable thing for those two women to do would be to surrender their tabs. I realize that they were respected for what they did do legitimately, which is not nothing, but that can all be undone by perpetuating this lie, and continuing to put others at risk by claiming something not rightfully earned.
Well, we all knew that the fix was in. I've been curious about the "standards" that exist these days. I've always contended that only those females on the very far end of the physical bell curve could make it through the course, these are, of course very few in the Army, (or the world). The physical toll placed on the human body by humping a heavy rucksack up and down the hills, etc... day after day, with little food and sleep is physically destroying to even the most physically fit males.
We used to talk about RI roulette, that is, getting a Ranger Instructor who focused on one thing or another, and the problem with being held responsible for the actions of the patrol even though you just took over. That's not what seems to be the case here.
It seems, however that the issues came from performance in the position. As officers, especially, they should be expected to maintain personnel accountability, (that's the first thing you learn), failing that is significant.
I give them credit for hanging in there, and recycling, (I recycled through the Mountain phase), but to grant the tab was not right if these allegations are accurate.
So, "standards" are not really standards. They're more like what? Wishful thinking?
I assume that the erstwhile standards were established because someone, somewhere, thought them useful to determine which candidates possessed those qualities perceived as necessary and/or desirable in war leaders. I can maybe see prioritization, but ignoring outright failure? Mmmmm.
What does that do to morale of the other candidates? What does that do to handicap the future leadership roles of these women? ...in a sense similar to a hesitation extend full faith to affirmative action applicants and graduates of law or medical schools: i.e., do you really want an AA person defending you against a capital offense charge in court or performing surgery on your loved one? ...or leading your son/daughter into battle?
similar to a hesitation TO extend
We have a few banged up Navy ships and body bags that are testament to how this plays out eventually, when 'standards' are creatively managed to predetermined outcomes.
The course is designed to place stress on the students approximating the stress of combat. Little or no food and sleep, extreme physical demands and constant pressure. There is a peer review at each phase for the studs to weed out those who aren't good Rangers, (are slackers, buddy fuckers, etc...).
I'm assuming that each of the females (Officers), have training and experience in personnel accountability, and have practiced such in units. That she failed to do so in a movement phase testifies to her inability to perform the most basic leadership task under extreme stress.
Note that junior enlisted people from the Ranger Regiment attend this course. They are E-3/4 non leadership people, who don't have the formal training and experience that these women have. Some Regiment people fail, but many pass, performing the same duties in the school that this woman did.
I believe that they wanted someone to pass, made sure they did, and knew that they would never have to perform in combat, so what's the problem?
Japanese military and civilian defense spheres have a high view of American Ranger school.
Not gonna last for long at this rate.
This is also why I don't exactly take seriously previous military veteran's opinion that America's problems would be solved with a draft promoting military and civic virtues via boot camp training, or that I should go attend one of the Marine/Army martial defense/attack programs to "get gud" at certain systems.
They are horrible quality, not because the people are incompetent or horrible but because that's just how the Power Point Rape Defense systems are setup as. They aren't allowed to teach women or men how to kill people without weapons or friendly fire proof protocols. That's called a "loose cannon".
In this scenario, you have people promoting women to Ranger tab and whatever, but they know they won't see combat? That's interesting. Promote Combat training, so that they can avoid combat. Promote hand to hand training, so that they use their ranged weapons and not their arms or hands or prosthetic legs.
Know why this is a problem? Because soldiers who can flip their own "kill switch" without orders from the President or Demoncrat commissar officers, can also disobey orders or kill when they feel like it, their own superior officers and hierarchy. This is a big Red Flag military issue back when the players I know had to deal with the whole "American rebellion domestic strife" cases. How to suppress a bunch of American slaves without the military getting in on the action. It's not a good idea to have a bunch of Fedayeen men/women/children who can assassinate, completely unarmed, half the military (treason red case) hierarchy. There's a problem there if the main front is not based around the military, but in side lining the US military for future operations.
You can call these case studies "How to Bring DOwn a Super Power level nation from the inside and outside".
The top down policy is not combat effectiveness. It is more like an NKVD insider operation.
If they wanted to make women and men combat effective, they would go about it in an entirely different fashion. They are not ignorant, at least not the general policy staff that acts as the front surface. They know exactly or were told exactly how to make women and gays combat capable. Theban band already accomplished it, plus Amazons and steppe horse archers.
They know. They don't need women to be combat capable. It's an NKVD style op instead. The interest of a commissar is NOT combat effectiveness generally speaking as the top priority. It is LOYALTY.
Post a Comment