I am not a Ranger, but feel compelled to contribute to the discussion since all components are considering allowing females to audition. I think we are all (or mostly all) in agreement that so long as a female can tow the line, then good on her. Welcome to the unit! My problem is not with the sex of the candidate, possible increases in cases of sexual assault or even the standards of performance. Well, assuming there is only one standard. My problem with this whole concept boils down to one thing...the almighty dollar.
Hypothetical situation: (For ease of computation, and to prevent my becoming embarrassed by an inevitable miscalculation, we'll use nice, round numbers.) Let's say that you run a selection program for a well-known unit in SOCOM. You run 5 courses each year. Each course has a maximum candidate limit of about 200, and you usually are filled to capacity. That's around 1000 candidates that actually show up on training day 1 over the period of a given year. You have your share of non- hackers who can't meet the standards. Then, there are the ever-present DORs who don't want to be there anymore. Of course, you'll always have those who get medically injured in some way and are deemed unfit to continue. Finally, you have those who completed the course, but you and your staff felt they weren't quite "special" enough to serve with the unit. So after all of the attrition, you typically end up with about 50-60 basically qualified individuals from each selection. These selected individuals will be sent on to the next phase where they'll actually begin their real training. You know in the back of your mind, and from reliable reports (other instructors), that there is a certain amount of attrition to be had in the course that follows yours. Either way at the end of the year, you end up with about 250 (50 x 5) basically qualified "selects". Of these 250, assume around 10% will not pass the follow on training course that aims to make them actual Special Operators. You know the costs involved with your course and those that follow it literally equates to millions of dollars being spent each year just to create these guys. It's mind blowing. Now, consider that your service component can find 20 super-fit, motivated females, that actually want to be there, meet all of the time and service restrictions and can meet or exceed all of the performance standards. They all show up at your next course. You've got to train female "observers", or "advisors" because God knows the male staff cannot be entrusted to carry out their mission with professionalism (sarcasm). Separate berthing must be figured out because the females are not going to be allowed to cohabitate with the male candidates. That could either mean finding another place for them to bunk, or actually having to build a new facility. Worse yet would be taking an entire building, or squad bay away from the male candidates and using it to house females. That would potentially cut into the number of male candidates you could take for each course because you wouldn't have anywhere to put them with females on deck. Apply the standard attrition and selection rates to this group of females and you come out with around 5 of your original 20. If statistics for females attending IOC are any indicator, expect the attrition to actually be quite a bit higher than what you are used to with males. Basically, for all of the additional work required, you will likely have very few females still standing when all is said and done.
B.L.U.F- It's somewhat justifiable to spend millions of dollars to end up with a company or two of newly minted Special Operators each year. Is it just as prudent to drag enough women through the proverbial "knot hole" until one finally makes it? Are the taxpayer's dollars being spent in an expeditious manner? Is it acceptable to throw handfuls of darts at the board in the hopes that just a few might stick? All in all, the juice doesn't appear to be quite worth the squeeze.
