For those of you that don't know, I spent my first two years of undergrad at The United States Military Academy at West Point. After dropping out/transferring, I have stayed in touch with many of my former classmates, mostly via facebook. Recently, through these friends, I have seen many posts/articles about a current controversy regarding the acceptance into Ranger School.
Ranger School is brutal. I have lots of friends who've gone through it, and their stories always include some sort of hallucinations due to extreme fatigue/mental anguish.
The idea (paraphrasing, please correct me if you think this is off), is to make Army leaders more effective in combat situations by putting them through something as hard or harder than a true combat scenario, for a long period of time. First, they physically exhaust you, then they deprive you of sleep, and then they give you tasks in high stress environments that are NEARLY impossible, forcing you to make complex leadership decisions without a functioning brain. Brutal.
The current discussion has two points, and one that is closely related, but that I think is the more important.
1. Should women be allowed into Ranger School
2. If women are allowed in, would entry standards/graduation standards change
3. Should women be allowed into combat at all?
My take:
The whole Ranger School debate is one that, I think, is really just a small part of the real question, which is #3. Should women be allowed in combat at all? The Air Force and the Navy have done it, with success. It's easily argued that this is a bit different, because in neither the AF or the Navy are really "front line" branches. Also, women have seen plenty of combat in the middle east in the last decade, as traditionally non-combat units have seen contact due to the shifting nature of the battle lines in current combat.
But what about infantry units, those who don't stumble into enemy fire, but go looking for it?
In my opinion (and yes, this is simplistic and idealistic), is that the military shouldn't even CONSIDER the sex/gender of a soldier when deciding whether they should be branched in combat or non-combat units.
This SHOULD be an argument over relatives vs absolutes. Can you do it, or can't you.
The reason for the high standards for things like Ranger School is to save lives. You want to know the limitations of your battle buddy. You want to know that they've been through the hardest shit you've ever seen, and have come out of it ready to watch your back. Does it matter AT ALL whether it's a man or a women? Hell no, it matters if they can do their job, and not get you shot.
There are three arguments that I can think of for why women shouldn't be in combat.
1. They can't handle combat emotionally
2. They can't handle combat physically
3. The logistics/social dynamics of having two sets of naughty bits running around in a combat unit causes problems.
1. Horsehit. We're all different, some people will crack under the pressure, some won't. The only way to lessen the number of cracks is to put everyone through the same shit. I don't believe this to be based on sex/gender at all, but even then, having an absolute standard weeds out those who can't hack it.
2. Keep the same standards. It's not about sex/gender, it's about ABILITY. Yes, a women who works out exactly the same as me will be weaker and slower. It's just a fact of nature. BUT, there are plenty of women out there who work harder than I do, and are stronger and faster than me. If they have the absolute ABILITY physically, they can achieve the standards and watch my back.
3. Deal with it. The only way this is a problem is if THE STANDARDS ARE DIFFERENT, and the men who've surpassed higher standards resent the women who've had an "easier" way through in an absolute sense.
There are places in life to allow for relative standards to give people an opportunity to pursue something ordinarily above their ability level. Standing beside my brothers in combat isn't one of them.
No comments:
Post a Comment