Combat Positions, With The Mission To Engage And Defeat The Enemy In Close Combat , Should Be All-Male

With Donald Trump’s nomination of Pete Hegseth as the next Secretary of Defense, the issue of “Women in Combat” is back in debate. For those not aware, Pete Hegseth is a former Combat experienced Infantry Officer (Iraq/Afghanistan) with a Combat Infantryman’s Badge (CIB) and Expert Infantryman’s Badge (EIB). Having received those awards, I’d like to offer insight.

The EIB requires passing a formidable slew of Infantry skills tests over a week period, and only around 10% earn the badge. The CIB requires the person to be part of the Infantry branch (or Special Forces), assigned to an Infantry unit at Brigade or lower, and come under direct enemy fire and fight back honorably against that enemy. With his unique experiences, on November 7, Pete said the following on the “Shawn Ryan Show” podcast: “I’m straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles…. (this) hasn’t made us more effective, hasn’t made us more lethal (but) has made fighting more complicated.” (Source)

These remarks have set off the expected knee-jerk barrage of hyper-criticism from the left and mainstream media. We should better define what Pete meant about “combat roles”, but then get to work with changing back to the status quo before gender integration of the combat arms.

First, Hegseth’s comment about women and combat was about the Obama Administration’s overturning decades of US defense policy in the “combat” roles of men and women in 2015. Only a year before leaving office, Obama went against the critical findings of credible and substantial Marine testing of gender integration. From the Marine Corps Times about the 2015 testing of gender integration: “Data collected during a monthslong experiment showed Marine teams with female members performed at lower overall levels, completed tasks more slowly and fired weapons with less accuracy than their all-male counterparts. In addition, female Marines sustained significantly higher injury rates and demonstrated lower levels of physical performance capacity overall, officials said.

Regardless, Obama allowed women in the previously all-male Infantry, Armor, Artillery, and Special Operations. Of note, Clinton had attempted the same gender integration into combat arms but was opposed by both Congress and the Pentagon. Women had been “in combat” during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but not in “combat arms” branches, particularly the Infantry, which had the mission of closing with and defeating.(Source)

Due to the relatively few veterans now in Congress and the American public, few understand the nuance of a “combat role” versus women being “in combat”. No credible figures argue that women should not be in military roles, which could be “in combat.” For example, my wife was an Army doctor while I was an Infantry officer. It is possible that she could have been on a base, in a combat zone, and come under attack. She could have been on a convoy between bases and come under attack. In those situations, regardless of branch or gender, military members are all under lethal threat. They may even have to fight back. The difference with Infantry is that branches and units have the “mission” of closing with and defeating the enemy in close combat. This could involve hand-to-hand, and the fact that men have (on average) 50% more upper body strength makes it a life-and-death disadvantage. The attributes required for supporting arms differ, and the physical differences matter much less.

Joining the chorus of criticism against Hegseth was the current top-ranking officer of the Canadian Armed Forces, Gen Jennie Carigan. Her comments to the Halifax International Security Forum predictably did not address the real issue.

They were deceptive: “After 39 years of a career as a combat arms officer and risking my life in many ops across the world, I can’t believe that in 2024, we still have to justify the contribution of women to their defense and to their service in their country”.

Gen Carigan was an engineer officer, not infantry or armor, who had tours in the Balkans and Afghanistan in engineer officer roles. Engineers are in a “combat support” branch distinct from the Infantry, Armor, or Special Operations. Gen. Carignan likely excelled in her role and was in a combat zone but not in the Infantry. She appears pretty intelligent but is relatively physically diminutive at 5’4 and 123 pounds. She should know it was deceptive to claim that Pete questioning women in “combat roles” causes Gen Carignan to “justify the contributions of women.” In his remarks, Pete Hegseth made sure to commend women in the military and “in combat” but questioned “combat roles.”

The result of this election has caused many Americans to reevaluate the fraudulent perceptions about where Americans stood on crucial issues. “Diversity, Equity, Inclusion” is finally seen for the harm it has caused, and it is now going away at major corporations and even swaths of academia. Another of Obama’s outgoing changes was allowing transexual service, but that will likely reverse with Trump. It’s time to re-visit and end gender integration in the actual combat arms and Special Operations. We must return to God’s truth over ideology and win on the battlefield again.