Article Options

Lexile® measure

Women Warriors

Three women just graduated from the Army’s elite Ranger School. But will they be allowed to go on missions with their male classmates?
Scott Olson/Getty Images
December 14, 2015
By Rebecca Zissou

Last summer, 96 soldiers completed one of the most grueling training programs in the world: the U.S. Army’s prestigious Ranger School in Georgia and Florida. During the intense 62-day program, soldiers scale cliffs at night, crawl through muddy trenches lined with barbed wire, and march for miles—all while carrying rifles and gear that weighs up to 100 pounds.

Those who finish the program—only 3 percent of active-duty Army soldiers—can try out for the 75th Ranger Regiment, an elite combat unit that’s sent on some of the military’s most dangerous missions. 

Women were allowed to attend the school for the first time this year and, in August, First Lieutenant Shaye Haver and Captain Kristen Griest made history as its first female graduates. (A third woman, Major Lisa Jaster, finished the course in October.) But despite having met all the same requirements as their male classmates, they aren’t allowed to compete for a spot in the regiment—because they’re women.

About 240,000 combat positions in the U.S. armed forces—20 percent of military jobs overall—are currently off-limits to female troops, mainly in and armor units. 

But that may be about to change. Next month, the is expected to open most—if not all—combat positions to women. The move comes nearly three years after the military’s momentous decision to lift the 1994 ban on women in ­combat. The Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines had until this fall to recommend which jobs, if any, should remain closed to women. (Officials say that only the Marines asked for exemptions.) U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter is reviewing their recommendations and will make the final call. 

“I do hope that with our performance in Ranger School, we’ve been able to inform that decision as to what they can expect from women in the military,” Griest recently told reporters. “We can handle things physically and mentally on the same level as men.”

HISTORY OF SERVICE

Women have served in our nation’s armed services since America’s founding. They were nurses, spies, and cooks during the American ­Revolution (1775-1783). In the Civil War (1861-1865), some women disguised themselves as men to fight. During World War II (1939-1945), hundreds of thousands of women took jobs as pilots, mechanics, and radio operators. 

Today, 214,000 women serve in the U.S. armed forces. They make up nearly 15 percent of active-duty military personnel, working as medics, intelligence officers, and police, and in other non-combat roles. 

Yet regardless of their job titles, women have often been involved in fighting, especially during the nation’s recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In those conflicts, traditional didn’t exist. Firefights could occur anywhere and at any time. As a result, female service members routinely dodged bullets, shot back ­during ambushes, and tried to avoid roadside bombs—even though they weren’t officially allowed in combat. According to the ­Congressional Research ­Service, at least 161 women have been killed in action since 2001 and more than 1,000 have been wounded.

TOUGH ENOUGH?
Jessica McGowan/Getty Images

Kristen Griest (left) and Shaye Haver (right), the first women to graduate from the Army’s Ranger School

People who support opening all ­military positions to women say the current policy has prevented female troops from moving up in the ranks, since top military jobs often require ­combat experience.  

Ray Mabus, the leader of the Navy and Marine Corps, insists that if women can meet the physical and mental requirements for a job, they should be allowed to apply. “Gender alone is not a justification for prohibiting a Marine from serving in a position for which she is qualified,” he recently wrote in The Washington Post.

Proponents also point to such countries as Canada, France, and Germany, where women have served in combat roles for years. 

But many other people worry that allowing female troops to take part in the fighting will weaken our military. They say studies show that women aren’t as naturally strong as men and are more prone to injuries. “We need our combat units to be the most lethal fighting force,” Jude Eden, a retired female Marine, recently wrote in The New York Times. “Adding women ­creates more danger for everyone and risks compromising missions.”

Critics are also concerned that physical standards will be lowered to make it easier for women to compete with men for jobs—something military leaders insist won’t happen. Even if some female service members are strong enough, opponents say, women will disrupt unit cohesion and distract the men in their ranks. 

Second ­Lieutenant Michael Janowski, Haver’s training partner during Ranger School, disagrees. He says there’s no question women are capable of serving in combat positions. He even credits Haver with helping him graduate from the program. 

During a particularly grueling training exercise, Haver volunteered to help Janowski carry his heavy gear up a rocky cliff. “I probably wouldn’t be sitting here right now if it wasn’t for Shaye,” he told reporters. “I would trust her with my life.”

Come 2016, Haver and the other female soldiers will likely be able to apply for the 75th Ranger Regiment—proving once and for all that they’re just as tough as men. 

CORE QUESTION: Should all combat positions be open to women? Use details from the article to support your answer.

U.S. News
War and Conflict
Text-to-Speech