Here We Go!

[The Reaper]

Army Times
May 31, 2004
Pg. 54

Women Unfairly Denied Shot At Ranger School

By Victoria A. Hudson

Combat service and combat service support soldiers soon may attend Ranger School, yet the majority may never serve as Rangers. The idea is to strengthen and better prepare soldiers for leading under fire, regardless of their military occupation specialty assignments.

Just one thing: No girls allowed.

Justification for the gender exclusion is that only support soldiers assigned to a battalion-level combined-arms task force, which excludes female soldiers, would be eligible.

Yet, the ambush of the 507th Maintenance Company in Nasiriyah, Iraq, is identified as a reason why we need more combat-savvy soldiers. You may recall there were women who fought, died and were captured in that ambush.

Duty in Iraq and Afghanistan has shown that women do fight the enemy. Women are subjected to hostile fire and must react to attack. Women accompany combat patrols, yet there remains an earlier-century gender bias that dictates women should not be trained for combat.

If non-combat arms soldiers are to attend Ranger School, they should include female soldiers.

If we are to ensure all soldiers have a greater warrior ethos, that can’t stop based upon gender. I don’t advocate assigning women to the infantry, but if it truly is “important to the warrior ethos that we engage as many soldiers as we can with the Army’s best school in combat leadership,� as Command Sgt. Maj. Michael Kelso of the Infantry Center was quoted in the April 12 issue of Army Times, then there is no justification to exclude women.

After all, there are some branches with women who are a bit closer to combat possibilities than the cooks, clerks and grease monkeys of the rear area. Pardon me, the transporters and signal jocks of the combat task force, military police, psychological operations and civil affairs, for example, come to mind. Who will deny these troops are out on the front line, if not in front of the front at times?

If the issue is logistics and plain discomfort about mixing genders in training, then hold a women-only training cycle.

Given current accounts of soldier-on-soldier sexual assault, putting the stress of mixed genders in such a demanding environment as Ranger School is likely not a scenario any commander wants.

The resentment of men in the course itself would be a significant distraction for all involved, creating an environment of hostility both unprofessional and inappropriate.

But that is not sufficient reason to deny women access to training that could very well save soldiers’ lives and enable them to better lead in combat.

Maybe it’s just too hard to swallow that some women would wear the coveted Ranger Tab. Fine. While we’re at it, take the tab off those men who are not, or who never have been assigned, as Rangers.

The warrior ethos is not something to pick and choose by gender. All soldiers must have this quality ingrained and reinforced. If non-combat arms soldiers who will not be assigned as Rangers have access to the highest quality of combat leadership training, then that training should include all soldiers.

Tradition should not deny soldiers access to training that is important to their development and fulfilling their responsibility to their subordinates. We are soldiers in the 21st century fighting a 21st-century war. We are all subject to the enemy and there is no safe haven for anyone because of gender. Gender, therefore, should not be a factor in determining who has access to the best training in combat leadership we have to offer.

The writer is a Reserve military police major with 24 years of service. She has mobilized four times, most recently completing a year with the U.S. Transportation Command as a joint anti-terrorism officer supporting operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. She is executive officer of the 6405th Reinforcement Training Unit, Intelligence and Security.