General, Tear Down that Wall: Gender and the Infantry
This 22 year Army infantry veteran and Ranger School graduate wants to see the wall standing between women and the infantry come crumbling down.
For the past two centuries, two walls have stood in the way of integrating women into Army infantry — a Department of Defense policy preventing it and a fortified culture. The first wall was removed in 2013 with the rescission of the 1994 Direct Ground Combat Definition and Assignment Rule for women. Chief of Staff of the Army Gen. Mark Milley has until fall of 2015 to open the infantry to women or submit a request to keep it closed. The second wall, the historic cultural mindset that only a man can do the job of an infantryman, was just hit with a symbolic wrecking ball following the graduation of two female soldiers from the Army’s most valued school of leadership and infantry tactics — Ranger School. I believe both walls should fall and remain fallen forever.
There has been no shortage of media hoopla surrounding the graduation of Capt. Kristen Griest and 1st Lt. Shaye Haver from Ranger School, all of it helpfully shining a light on the positives. But the media attention underplays the significance of what just happened — this achievement deals a severe blow to over two centuries of deep-seated cultural opposition to the role of women in the infantry. This opposition stubbornly remains, but is now on the back foot.
I’ve served over 22 years as an infantryman in the Army. I attended and graduated Ranger School as a young enlisted soldier. I’ve served in airborne, light, and mechanized infantry units. I’ve served as an infantry platoon leader and company commander in combat. I’ve served two years as a Ranger instructor and have competed in the “Best Ranger” competition.
From private to major, being an infantryman has remained a core part of my identity. Like many others, I always considered my occupation a man’s job. My indoctrination into the Army and then the infantry included an assimilation of the values, beliefs, symbols, and quirky daily rituals. It is a proudly masculine subculture of mental and physical strength. I quickly learned the specific rules of my selected tribe by listening and watching. I learned the good, the bad, and the ugly of what was valued and what was shunned.
For instance, I learned that being a fast distance runner, having overall muscle strength, and being able to carry extremely heavy weight on my back for untold distances were expectations, not goals. Ditto for mental toughness and leadership under physical or mental stress.
Just as in any other subculture, these values are represented in our symbols. For the military these symbols of skills and strength are identifiable in what we wear on our uniforms. The most powerful one is the Ranger tab, a 2 3/8-inch x 11/16-inch tab worn on the left shoulder to signify the wearer as a graduate of Ranger School.
Ranger School is one of the toughest training regimens in the Army: 62 days in punishing heat or freezing cold, divided into three phases held in the woods of Ft. Benning in Georgia, the mountains of Dahlonega at the northern end of the state, and the swamps of Eglin Air Force Base down in Florida. Just to be admitted, students must pass a week of physical assessments that included pushups, sit-ups, a five-mile run, a 12-mile foot march, chin-ups, swimming, land navigation, several obstacle courses, and more. They have to learn infantry tactics and demonstrate leadership capability while executing those tactics during three field exercises that simulate continuous combat operations. Combined with sleep deprivation, long stretches of no food (a measly two meals per day) will impair anyone’s judgment and sap the body of strength and weight — it’s not uncommon to lose 30 pounds during the course of the training. The entire experience tests Ranger students’ ability to endure what they never thought imaginable and still lead troops to accomplish their assigned mission.
Ranger School is not a requirement to be in the infantry. But it is the most powerful symbol in the infantry. It should not be confused with the Ranger Regiment, an elite special operations unit composed of mostly infantry soldiers. Ranger School is just that — a school. It is an extremely challenging school that most males (over 60 percent) do not successfully pass. All infantry officers must attend the school and, as the saying goes, “An infantry officer either has a ranger tab, or he has a story.”
There is no physical or mental requirement to be an infantryman. The Army is working hard to set such occupational standards. But there is a crucible of mental and physical endurance that tests individuals’ infantry tactics and leadership under stress and that symbolizes the cultural core of the infantry — Ranger School. And two women just passed that test.
While the infantry comprises roughly 15 percent of the active-duty Army, it is also the largest, the oldest, and, at least among some circles, the most prestigious occupation in the Army. Like most of my fellow infantrymen, I thought this elite subculture would and should always stay male-only. Two female soldiers graduating from Ranger School last Friday just proved me and countless others wrong, piercing a cultural wall and forever changing the future role of women in combat.
Here’s to hoping both walls preventing women in the infantry receive a final push and come crumbling down.
Major John Spencer, a U.S. Army Infantry, has served in assignments from Iraq to the Pentagon and Italy to Washington State. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the US Military Academy, Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
Photo credit: The U.S. Army
MarineInfantryOfficer 
LTG(R) Ben R. Mixon 
C.E. Rice 
Tony Nadal 
Troy Ross 
ADM64 
Scott Wild 
Vic Robertson 
Micheal 
LTC. Jeffrey Plants (ret.) 
Wow, how enlightened you are. 2 women pass a “test” (after several attempts) and we are ready to open the entire world of the infantry to all females? Ok. Well, not ok, but that is the justification?
I respect your experiences and your service but the issue goes deeper than two females passing a test. Things like the lifestyle of an infantryman, the social implications (that you or I wont have to deal with, but the Corporals, Sergeants, Lieutenants and Captains will), and lets not forget that if and when we have another draft we will be sending totally unprepared girls out to be slaughtered because unlike men, they will not have the genetic disposition to face another man in combat.
It continually baffles me that ANY infantryman would advocate for this. By the way, I would wager that the Ranger school is nowhere near the difficulty of the Infantry Officer Course. That is simply because IOC has not been tainted by higher level influence, I would imagine.
Here’s an idea…lets focus on making our infantry more lethal and combat effective. Introducing females to the infantry will definitely NOT accomplish that.
As a Ranger School Graduate, commander of 3 Infantry Companies including a Ranger Company and multiple tours in combat zones I have to disagree with the author. The life in an Infantry Battalion in peace and war does not equate to the weeks spent in Ranger School. Certainly these two outstanding officers who graduated should be held up as an example. However, it does not justify opening Infantry Battalions to women. Army Medical Department studies have clearly shown increased rate of injury for women assigned to previously all male military occupational specialties. This is a fact. The other social and policy factors the Marine Infantry Officer highlight are real and will impact Combat Readiness. The new Chief of Staff of the Army has written that his number one priority is on Combat Readiness. If so he will decide not to integrate women into Infantry Battalions.
I concur with MarineInfantryOfficer. Also, absent from this discussion is any mention of combat effectiveness, which should be the driving factor. Regrettably, this is solely a domestic politics issue. You can find a dozen 50 year-olds who pass Ranger School. Should we tear down the age wall? Does it make sense to let 50 year-olds enlist?
I don’t know Maj Spencer’s experience in sustained ground infantry combat. Mine included commanding an infantry company in the Ia Drang Valley, Bong Son and a Special Forces A team in Vietnam. Although there were some tough close fights in Iraq and Afghanistan they were not equivalent to spending weeks in the jungles of VN or the winters in Korea. You can’t say that because two determined, fit, and remarkable young women made it through Ranger school that that means infantry assignments should be open to women. In the first place I am aware of only one instance in Iraq or Afghanistan where women participated in an infantry type maneuver against an enemy force. The statement made by others that women have been in combat is true only if riding in a convoy that gets ambushed is considered equivalent to an infantry assault on a defended position.
More importantly, however, is the question, “Why is it important for a handful of women -that’s being all that will want to be infantrymen- to be accommodated?” How will this improve the esprit, cohesion, tenacity of an infantry company? Will this facilitate or exacerbate the problems of the chain of command? Will the presence of two or three women in an infantry company make for a more combat effective company?
That is the criteria by which this action should be measured. Extensive infantry combat causes a dehumanization of soldiers which will lead to problems in relationships. Those of you who haven’t been there have no basis for making judgements.
I would like to support the earlier responses. What the author proposes is a mistake that our military is likely to blunder headlong into. I served as a 10th MTN brigade surgeon and 4th INF division preventive medicine physician. I saw the impact of combat on all of our soldiers, and mixing women into the combat units DID NOT make us more effective. There are too many layers of complexity to address here, but consider what is does to a unit when a soldier conveniently becomes pregnant right before deployment only to have a “miscarriage” after she is left at home station. Or how about the effect on morale when married couples deploy in the same unit and are allowed to cohabitate while the rest of their buddies have strict regulations against spending time alone with the opposite sex.
The physcal differences are known by all of us. That a few outliers can beat the odds does not support a change in policy for the group. The military does not function as a gaggle of individuals. Group dynamics argue against good outcomes if we mix men and women in frontline combat units.
How about this – form a female infantry unit and beta test their real world performance?
This, in a nutshell, illustrates why our military can’t win wars. It has forgotten what war actually is, war against competent enemies, war without electronic, space and air superiority, war in which ballistic and cruise missiles rain down on our rear areas, war 24-7. Most importantly, war as a brutal competition in which imposing one’s will on the enemy is what matters. In such an environment, our forces would be stressed like nothing in Iraq or Afghanistan or the Balkans, “wars” that we have failed to win and “wars” that have nevertheless inflicted hugely disproportionate injuries on our so-called non-combat women soldiers. One can extrapolate the results of further integration.
If people like the author really want to go this route, then abolish all separate standards and let the numbers speak for themselves. The best data to date indicates 2% of women will be able to perform to the male average. Hard biology, not social opinion, dictates that number. If we want those women to serve, fine. They’ll still suffer injuries at higher rates, require special gear, and get pregnant and want career time-outs. How this in any way makes us better is not answered, just as the hard biology is not recognized. And that lack of realism and objectivity brings us back to why we don’t win wars.
No doubt CPT Griest and 1Lt Haver earned their tabs and I concur that military personnel with the grit should have full access to all available combat leadership training. It’s best for them and the Army. I too am qualified as a Ranger and Apache pilot like 1Lt Haver. All she has done makes good sense to me and Aviation branch has been integrated for decades. Regarding full integration of the Infantry at this time, it must be noted that the two women Rangers are West Point graduates – that’s four years of the very best Army indoctrination, training, and education prior to attending Ranger School. In my experience as a Ranger School graduate, a sizable percentage of my class included first term, junior enlisted men, who prior to successful completion of Ranger School, only had Basic Training, AIT, and RIP under their belt. To date, no enlisted females (NCO or Jr.) have demonstrated the ability to achieve this measure. I would think it necessary in order to actually integrate the Infantry branch. The Army is performing intense research on this subject and should be able to carry it out without all of the daily, one-sided, heavy handed, political fanfare.
MAJ Spencer, was there ever a doubt that a woman could graduate from Ranger School? Look far and wide enough, and they are there. But that is the wrong question. The question is, will our Army be a less effective fighting force with women in the ground-gaining arms? Very few women can pass Ranger School. Surely you admit these two females are exceptional. Another question: is there a positive balance in the cost/benefit analysis for accommodating females in the ground-gaining arms? I refer to costs in all the resources–money, time, combat effectiveness, leadership attention, medical complications, etc. I submit that there should be doubt about those answers. Until proven effective and worth the cost, we should not allow an agenda by some of our politicians to force female integration into all positions in the Army. I suggest a trial in which the Army trains 20 women to be infantry, then incorporate them into one infantry platoon–distributed throughout all the squads and platoon HQ, and give that platoon the best platoon sergeant available and the female lieutenant Ranger grad can lead them, and test that platoon against another in all circumstances–garrison and the field. Maybe even send that platoon into combat and test this new enlightened idea where it counts. The enemy does not care how enlightened and fair our Army is. The enemy will show us if this is a good idea.
I hope mom and dad are prepared to explain to their 17 year old daughter that she may soon be required to register for Selective Service.
Rostker v. Goldberg (1981)
Case Summary
In 1980, Robert Goldberg challenged the U.S. draft registration policy by bringing suit against Bernard Rostker, the director of the Selective Service System. When Goldberg won in federal court, Rostker appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Court’s Decision
In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled that it was constitutional to register only men for the draft. Justice William Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion. He noted that “the question of registering women for the draft not only received considerable national attention and was the subject of wide-ranging public debate, but also was extensively considered by Congress in hearings, floor debate, and in committee. Hearings held by both Houses of Congress in response to the President’s request for authorization to register women adduced extensive testimony and evidence concerning the issue.”
Congress specifically determined that in wartime, the primary purpose of a draft would be to provide combat troops. “Since women are excluded from combat, Congress concluded that they would not be needed in the event of a draft, and therefore decided not to register them.” He went on to say: “Men and women, because of the combat restrictions on women, are simply not similarly situated for purposes of a draft or registration for a draft.”
Why should we degrade the capability of our combat line units for a social experiment? Take a close look at the adversary’s combat infantry battalions – even third or fourth tier units represent serious threats. This is not an equal opportunity problem it’s a what is your combat power problem. Women make excellent pilots, truck drivers and MP’s. But the infantry is a completely different ball game. I will believe woman can cut it in the Infantry when I see women linemen in the NFL.