|
How The Army Tried To Avoid Telling The Truth About Women In Ranger Training
 [Daily Caller] Editor’s note: What follows is the second of a two-part series of adapted excerpts from decorated veteran and conservative writer James Hasson’s new book Stand Down: How Social Justice Warriors Are Sabotaging America’s Military (Here at Barnes and Noble). The first part covers the intense training required for most Ranger candidates, and how that training was blunted internally by bureaucrats and military officials with an agenda. The second part covers the military’s response when news began to leak, and how they tried to cover up their malfeasance.The Department of the Army’s reaction to the allegations is more important than the allegations themselves. The impetus for Susan Katz Keating’s bombshell story in People diagramming the concerns from Ranger Instructors (RIs) about watering down of course requirements for women was a letter sent by a member of the House Armed Services Committee, Congressman Steve Russell of Oklahoma, to Army Secretary John McHugh. Russell was a highly-decorated infantry lieutenant colonel and Ranger School graduate who had a distinguished career of more than twenty years in the Army (including commanding a battalion that played a central role in capturing Saddam Hussein) before retiring and becoming a member of Congress. Russell’s letter asked the Army to provide all internal Ranger School documents related to the female candidates’ training and assessment, including "test scores, evaluations, injuries, pre-training and more." Russell had spoken to several RIs who told him one story‐that standards had been lowered and senior Ranger Training Brigade officials had unduly influenced the outcome of the course‐while the Army was telling him another‐that everything was the same as always. "The training of our combat warriors is paramount to our national defense," Russell wrote to Secretary of the Army John McHugh. "In order to ensure that the Army retains its ability to defend the nation, we must ensure that our readiness is not sacrificed." (It’s worth noting that Russell also went out of his way to emphasize in his public statements that he did not, and would not, question the abilities or records of any of the individual candidates themselves. His concern was solely about the possibility that officials with their own agendas had improperly influenced the course and about the effects their actions would have on the Army.) Posted by: Besoeker 2019-08-30 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=549238 |