It appears that the handwringing has started over the issue of women’s ability to serve in combat. Trump has nominated a combat veteran, Pete Hegseth to be the next Secretary of Defense and it appears that Hegseth has some definitive views on the subject. As a decorated combat veteran having served in two combat zones over my 23-year career as an armor officer I have also developed my views on the subject.
Let me make it clear right up front – I have no objections to women serving in all the Uniformed Services of the United States. There are military occupational specialties (MOS) that range across a wide swath of military jobs that are in some cases best performed by women. More on that subject later. The issue is women in front-line combat units defined as the infantry, armor, and artillery. It appears that Mr. Hegseths position on the matter is that women do not support the lethality and war-fighting capabilities of these specific units.
Let us first understand what is intended when discussing “Lethality”: Lethality refers to the quality or state of being capable of causing death. It is often used to describe the deadliness or dangerousness of something, such as a weapon, disease, or other hazardous agent. The term suggests a high probability or likelihood of resulting in fatality or severe harm. It is a measure of the potency or destructive capacity of a particular substance, force, or phenomenon. As an armor officer, I was trained from the first day in Officers Candidate School that the mission of an armor unit is to close with and kill or capture the enemy.
In 2015, the U.S. Marine Corps conducted a year-long study to evaluate women’s ability to perform in combat. An AI summary of the report provided the following:
Performance: All-male units outperformed mixed-gender units on 93 out of 134 tasks, including speed, marksmanship, and casualty evacuation.
Injuries: Female Marines sustained higher injury rates than male Marines.
Accuracy: All-male rifleman squads had better accuracy than mixed-gender squads.
Crew-served weapons (machine guns, mortars, artillery): All-male units were faster than mixed-gender units, especially when using heavy machine guns and mortars.
The Marine Corps study says units with women fall short in combat … The study’s results have been used to inform decisions about whether to allow women in ground combat and to develop new approaches to accomplishing specific tasks.
The Pentagon completely rejected these study results and opened the combat MOSs to women. What is important here is remembering that in 2015 Barack Obama was the President and the military was used as a social engineering experiment. However, the study findings were and remain valid so the consideration of continuing to have women in combat at least deserves a further discussion. We are told that there are approximately 40,000 to 48,000 woman veterans living in Maryland. That means that of the estimated 400,000 vets in Maryland, approximately 350,000 to 360,000 are male veterans.
If we take the findings of the USMC study seriously and then pole the male veterans across the state on these findings we might find that there is a difference in opinion about who should be serving in the infantry or armor or artillery. The study found that “All-male rifleman squads had better accuracy than mixed-gender squads” … This is the quintessential definition of lethality. Shoot and kill the enemy before I am shot and killed. If in fact “All-male units were faster than mixed-gender units, especially when using heavy machine guns and mortars” than there is room to consider the speed with which crew-served weapons can be put into action – increased lethality from some very important weapons. As a commander when I “call for fire,” I expect my mortal crews and artillery to respond immediately. The last thing I want to hear is that they have not reached their firing position because they are still moving. If you have served in combat you know this is fundamentally unacceptable.
The battlefield is a terrifying place, and the terror is not limited to women. But if the “pointy end of the spear” is not as “pointy” as it can be because of a belief that women are a necessary part of our combat units then I do believe that we need additional debate on the matter.
The debate must begin by agreeing that there will be standards set if women are to continue to serve in the combat arms. Not “Obama” standards – no lowering the bar for the sake of inclusion. That is what is being done today and it is not acceptable. The lowering of standards will get both men and women killed on the battlefield. The standards must be set by combat veterans not “PowerPoint Warriors” who think they know but they really don’t. Then and only then can the debate go forward.
Pete Hegseth has said publicly that there is a place for women in the armed services and I think America can take him at his word. We all know the stories of the women truck drivers who fought off the ambush in Iraq. And the of the helicopter pilot that lost he legs in a helicopter crash. All persons joining the military, men, women, enlisted, or officers are taught to shoot and qualify with a rifle. Not all men are classified as 90th percentile male and not all women are 5th percentile females. Experience shows that some women and some men are not physically equipped and built for all of the missions. In each case, we assign people according to the skills and needs of the service that best fits them individually.
If they don’t get it right it could mean the unnecessary death of a dedicated warrior. So let’s have the debate, stop the handwringing, and recognize that there are more than woman veterans that get a vote on this matter. Let the debate begin.
Recent Comments