Pete Hegseth is Correct: Women Don’t Belong in Combat Roles

By Russ Walker

The nomination of Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense has reignited the debate over women serving in combat roles. As a veteran and parent of two children serving in the military—one in the U.S. Air Force Security Forces and another as a U.S. Army Infantry officer—I have a personal stake in this discussion. While women can and do serve with distinction across many roles in the Armed Forces, combat arms should not be one of them. Ability is not the sole consideration; the primary concern should always be maintaining combat effectiveness. I agree with Hegseth—women do not belong in combat arms.

Moreover, advancing individuals based on race or gender goals instead of merit is discriminatory, fundamentally unfair, and jeopardizes the military’s combat readiness. To assess this issue objectively, we must strip away partisan rhetoric and focus on the basics of military readiness and performance.

The Mission of the U.S. Military

The U.S. military’s role is to defend national security and project power globally to protect American interests. This includes defeating adversaries, supporting alliances, providing humanitarian aid, and responding to crises. At its core, the military exists to win wars, and its effectiveness hinges on the capabilities of its personnel and units.

Combat Arms vs. Support Roles

Combat arms units are the backbone of military operations, directly engaging in offensive and defensive actions on the battlefield. These units—such as infantry, armor, and artillery, and special forces—require intense physical training and readiness for high-stakes missions. In contrast, support roles provide logistical, technical, and administrative assistance, ensuring combat arms units can sustain operations. Both roles are critical, but the physical and psychological demands of combat arms necessitate the highest levels of capability.

The Recruitment Crisis

The Department of Defense has not met recruitment goals for the past four years, with the Army falling short by tens of thousands of recruits annually. This decline is attributed to a strong civilian job market, a shrinking eligible population, and controversial policies, including diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. These factors, combined with a generational disconnect from military service, contribute to recruitment and retention challenges. As of September 2023, only 0.86% of Americans actively serve in the military, reflecting a concerning disconnect between the Armed Forces and the broader population.

Physical Differences

Biological differences between men and women have significant implications for combat roles. For example, my daughter, a former collegiate athlete, is 5’2” and weighs around 115 pounds, while my son, also a collegiate athlete, stands at 5’11” and weighs 200 pounds. These differences affect their ability to carry the combat load of 60–100 pounds—representing 30–50% of my son’s weight but 50–85% of my daughter’s.

Similarly, the Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT) reveals disparities in physical performance standards between men and women. While adjustments for age and gender aim for “inclusivity”, they undermine the principle of merit-based evaluation essential for combat roles. The physical demands of combat, including ruck marches, casualty evacuation, and sustained firefights, require absolute physical parity that cannot be legislated or trained into existence.

Evidence from the Marine Corps Study

A 2017 Marine Corps study on mixed-gender infantry units underscored the challenges of integrating women into combat roles. Key findings included:

• Performance Gaps: All-male units outperformed mixed-gender units in speed, strength, and endurance.

• Higher Injury Rates: Women experienced more musculoskeletal injuries and stress fractures.

• Task Delays: Mixed-gender units took longer to complete physically demanding tasks, such as casualty evacuation.

• Reduced Unit Cohesion: All-male units exhibited greater cohesion and effectiveness in physically demanding tasks.

While some critics argue that targeted training could mitigate these gaps, the study makes it clear that integrating women into combat arms comes with substantial challenges to readiness and effectiveness.

The Impact of DEI on Combat Readiness

The push for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) has further complicated military readiness. Prioritizing demographic goals over merit undermines trust, morale, and cohesion. DEI policies have led to perceptions of lowered standards, divisive unit dynamics, and resource diversion from critical warfighting priorities. Promotions and assignments driven by gender or race, rather than performance, erode the merit-based ethos essential to military effectiveness.

Conclusion

The inclusion of women in combat roles and the imposition of DEI initiatives threaten the core mission of the military: winning wars. The U.S. military must prioritize combat effectiveness above all else, ensuring that those in combat roles meet the highest standards of physical and tactical readiness. Advancing individuals based on merit—not gender, race, or political agendas—is the only way to preserve the strength, cohesion, and effectiveness of the Armed Forces.

Note: The opinions expressed herein are those of Russ Walker alone and do not represent those of Breaking Battlegrounds’ hosts or staff.