Hegseth Drives New Review of Women in Ground Combat Roles

The question of the extent to which women should hold combat roles in our military has been argued over for decades. There are many issues involved, not least of which are biological; men are measurably larger, stronger, faster, with more endurance and greater resistance to trauma than women. These are significant enough to be differences not in degree but in kind. 

Nevertheless, the American military, in large part due to pressure from leftist politicians and "woke" armchair generals, has sought to integrate women into ground combat roles. Now, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has ordered a new review of this practice.

The Pentagon confirmed Tuesday it directed a review of women’s “effectiveness” in ground combat roles after nearly a decade of them serving in such jobs. 

The move follows Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s September announcement that newly proposed military fitness standards may exclude women from certain combat roles.

“The Institute for Defense Analyses is reviewing the effectiveness of having women in ground combat roles to ensure standards are met and the United States maintains the most lethal military,” press secretary Kingsley Wilson said in a statement to The Hill.

That last statement is key. Maintaining the most lethal military is the only consideration. Women were not placed in ground combat roles to ensure the most lethal military. The armed services didn't start taking in and retaining "transgender" members in the interests of maintaining the most lethal military. Many of the things the Pentagon did under the Obama and Biden administrations were directly opposed to making the military the most lethal it can be. But the Secretary of War appears narrowly focused on fixing that.

Hegseth, in a highly unusual address to hundreds of the military’s top leaders in Quantico, Va., last year, declared new directives to ensure every combat position “returns to the highest male standard” of their service’s physical fitness test.

“If that means no women qualify for some combat jobs, so be it,” said Hegseth, an Army National Guard veteran.

That's one way of handling it, but the review could lead to a more permanent, more system-wide fix to the whole problem.

Read More: Night Stalkers Over Caracas: How U.S. Special Forces Pulled Off the Perfect Raid

'Tis the Season for Finding Out: Pete Hegseth Comes for Sen. Mark Kelly Over 'Seditious' Video

As it happens, not only am I a veteran, but my wife is as well - a Bronze Star recipient, at that. Ask her, and she'll tell you that she stands adamantly opposed to women holding ground combat roles. She points out the biological reasons as well as psychological ones - "the men will do stupid things to protect the women," she will point out. This is the opinion of a Cold War/Desert Storm veteran and one of the more capable officers I've ever known.

Our armed forces aren't a jobs program. They must not be concerned with diversity, equity, inclusion, or any other woke horse squeeze. The only criterion must be lethality. We must build a service of warriors, and DEI isn't the way to go about that.

There is and always will be a role for women in the military. But that role isn't in ground combat. The military is not an equal-opportunity employer; it is and must be mission-oriented. Nothing else matters: All that matters are qualifications, standards, and the mission, which is to protect the liberty and property of the citizens of the United States. 

Editor's Note: Thanks to President Trump and War Secretary Pete Hegseth's leadership, the warrior ethos is coming back to America's military.

Help us report on Trump and Hegseth's successes as they make our military great again. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.