Women in Combat: My View

[December 3, 2024]  With Pete Hegseth’s nomination as Secretary of Defense by President-elect Donald Trump, an age-old argument about women serving in combat is back in the public eye.

In an interview on The Shawn Ryan Show, November 7, Hegseth made it clear that he believed, “We should not have women in combat roles!”*  What he said previously was he sees no problem at all with women in the military, just not where they will have to face an enemy face-to-face.

“[Women in combat roles] hasn’t made us more effective, hasn’t made us more lethal, has made fighting more complicated.” – Pete Hegseth

There was an instant and consistent blowback on these comments and unsurprisingly so. Much of the arguments against Hegseth’s view comes from the Feminist Movement that claims women can do anything that a man can do; that they are just as mentally and physically fit as a man. Well, I’m here to say that folks with common sense believe otherwise.

“Frankly, America’s daughters are just as capable of defending liberty and freedom as her sons.” – Senator Tammy Duckworth, November 14, 2024

I understand where Sen. Duckworth is coming from; her desire is that we not degrade the military service of women. This is a laudable position. Yet, many have unfairly pointed out that women have served in direct combat and accomplished their tasks as good, or better than men. Such misguided cherry-picking an exceptional case here or there will do no one any good.

In my opinion, women should not be in combat.  I believe there is a moral question that must first be answered.  Do we want women coming home in body bags in large numbers?  I think the answer is both obvious and has not changed since we began asking this question about women serving in combat. The answer is “no.”

Women are biologically the ones who give life and nurture infants. To attempt to believe women can fulfill both the nurture and combat roles is asking too much. The effect on our nation is largely unpredictable and not worth the long-term price we would pay in lower birth rates, higher psychological problems in children, and lowering the value of women.

I will also point out that women, who insist that other women are perfectly fine in combat roles, are also implicitly saying that non-combat positions are ”inferior” and are ”less prestigious.” Yes, might be true but all branches of the military work very hard to reduce this way of thinking.

I’ve never seen women in a combat role but I have served with them in non-combat units. For that reason, I have no direct evidence to directly support my view. But I have served in combat and can envision, with some reliability, how women might perform in combat. But this is a mute point.

We should not have women in combat roles because it destroys how we see women in their primary role in life and that is to bear children and raise infants. Plus, the impact on our society is unknown. I don’t think we should take the risk.

————

Please read my books:

“55 Rules for a Good Life,” on Amazon (link here).

“Our Longest Year in Iraq,” on Amazon (link here).

————

*  NOTE: “Combat roles” refers to positions in armed forces that allow fighting the enemy.  Traditionally, combat would mean direct hand-to-hand human fight which involves deliberate offensive actions, i.e., engaging an enemy while being exposed to direct enemy fire. In times of war, combat duties are duties requiring a person to personally commit an act of violence against the enemy.  Some U.S. Army job specialties are more likely to see combat such as: 11B – Infantryman, 11C – Indirect Fire Infantryman, 18S – Special Forces, 19D – Cavalry Scout, 19K – Tanker, 13F – Fire Support Specialist, 68W – Combat Medic, and 12B – Combat Engineer.