Man or Woman, Rangers Just Want the Best in their Formations
A female Ranger candidate gives her take on women in combat units, arguing that the "best athlete" approach and an openness to all options maximize the chances of success for our warfighters.
If Ranger School is a litmus test for whether or not a woman belongs in combat arms branches, do the two female graduates of the grueling course who were awarded the coveted Ranger Tab last week help get our Army closer to saying “yes”? How much more scrutiny will it take for the “best athlete” approach to reign supreme when building our military? And what happens when, in traditionally male environments, women emerge as the best athletes?
During pre-Ranger training in January, I spent a 12-mile road march with an infantryman. We talked and bonded a lot during that event. This young soldier saw no gender barrier for anyone, for anything. Together we destroyed a punishing course and for those few hours, a female major with 14 years of service was completely fused with a 19-year-old private first class on his first assignment in the Army. There were more similarities than any differences between us. We wanted to accomplish the mission and we wanted to earn the Ranger tab. We were two soldiers, gutting it out, trying to be the best versions of ourselves.
Later in March, at the Ranger Training Assessment Course — a mandatory event for all female Ranger candidates — I was met with the same attitude and support from the other male students. That particular class held 85 men and 34 women soldiers. No one cared if it was a man or woman helping carry a rucksack or returning fire during patrolling — they simply cared that the mission was accomplished.
The guys I met along the way were not surprised when a woman wanted to come to Ranger School. They grew up in gyms and CrossFit boxes and ran mud races and obstacles races with women alongside them. They get it. In my experience deployed to Afghanistan, Iraq and in pre-Ranger training, people were valued for meeting standards and contributing every day in every way possible.
Millennial Americans have grown up in a nation where young children, boys and girls alike, are playing the same sports with little in the way of exclusion. And with more equal access to participation in the same sports, appreciation of athletes’ feats has become increasingly detached from the issue of gender. Thus, the U.S. victory in the Women’s World Cup final in July was the most-watched soccer game in American history, and MMA fighter Ronda Rousey’s title defense earlier this month garnered more pay-per-view purchases than any of the previous eight UFC events this year. Caveating “she’s a great athlete” with “for a girl” is increasingly rare, and complaints that women shouldn’t be competing in this event or that are drowned out by full-throated support for their achievements. This is the concept of “the best athlete,” and it is real. This generational change can be fundamental to how teams win and it’s what I experienced in my attempt to go to Ranger School.
Talent knows talent and the best want the best. If Ranger Instructors endorse a soldier by way of a “go” at Ranger School, trust them. There’s only one standard there: the Ranger standard. Ranger School employs the best athlete approach by allowing only the most worthy candidates who maintain or exceed the standard to graduate. No weak Rangers. Opening the door to let all service members go is a win for the school, the Army, and our nation. The secretary of defense should allow our most qualified and skilled soldiers to serve — no exceptions. (Read more about the No Exceptions effort here).
Today’s warfighters are the products of progress and naturally believe that merit and contribution to the mission are the most important things, much more so than a gender. The best athlete approach and an openness to all options that maximize chances of success are innate in superior warfighters, especially the youngest generation. Plainly put, younger soldiers seem more willing to accept women serving in any position in the Army — and it has never occurred to them that they couldn’t. Most importantly, leaders of our fighting forces still want the best athletes, and changing perceptions make it more likely that they will find women represented among them. But to find them, more doors must be opened. Congratulations Ranger Class 8-15. Rangers Lead The Way!
Ligeia Zeruto is a combat veteran and a major in the U.S. Army Reserves. She provided intelligence support to the special operations community, joint task forces and intelligence agencies during deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. She was a medical drop from the pre-Ranger training for Ranger School and is in the process of applying for the November course offering.
Photo credit: U.S. Army
bill 
Michael 
“Best Athlete” is a great concept that ultimately falls short in the very definition she uses. Yes, Ronda Rousey could kick a ton of male ass, but she would not last a moment in the ring with Silva in MMA. By the same token, there’s a reason that there are female and male categories at the olympics. Because the females cannot compete on the male playing field. You want true gender neutral? Do away with such “artifices”, and see how many females ever earn a medal. For instance, the fastest female marathon time EVER recorded would have placed 20th in the last olympics. In no way do I mean to disparage what the two female Ranger school graduates accomplished. They earned the tab, and I congratulate them, but Ranger school is nothing more than a school. The author is correct that the Army needs the best and the brightest, but I find it discouraging that for the females it’s all about volunteering, but for the males, it’s a matter of needs of the Army. A male can be told, “Infantry or nothing”, because unless the female volunteers, the other MOS is guaranteed her. This shouldn’t be about what the most competitive female can accomplish, because that’s not what the Army looks for in a male. It should be about what the AVERAGE female can accomplish, same as it is for the males. Why should the male be told he’s going in the infantry, while the female can simply not volunteer if she so chooses? It’s a double standard designed solely to allow the female to “achieve her goals” as opposed to defending the nation. If you want true equality, force the females into the infantry just like the males. But then, we’d be losing the very reason she argues. It isn’t about national defense. It’s about self actualization. If we were to do that, we’d need to lower just about every standard to ensure a pass rate that was worth the expense of sending a ton of females to the infantry. One female’s goal of proving she can do it is not the Army’s goal of defending the nation.
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.”