Pete Hegseth’s culture war will weaken America’s armed forces

FOR MILLEnNIA war has been a largely male undertaking. Women may have sparked conflict—think of Helen of Troy—or in countless numbers been its victims. They have also conducted daring missions behind enemy lines as spies and saboteurs. But until recently most Western armies barred women from serving in “ground close combat”. Over the past decade, in America and Europe, many of those restrictions have been lifted. Pete Hegseth, Donald Trump’s nominee to run the Department of Defence, believes that was a mistake. He is wrong. His effort to import the country’s culture wars into the Pentagon will weaken American military power.

The American and British armed forces opened all combat positions to women a decade ago. Canada and some European states did so before that. Many countries had long resisted these steps. They worried that women would not be up to the physical demands of being in the infantry, which is tasked with closing with and killing the enemy; that they would be more susceptible to injuries; and that the presence of women would affect the cohesion of small units, a vital factor in combat.

Some of those concerns were reasonable. Female recruits do tend to be at greater risk of injury. Infantry combat remains physically demanding. Technology has not entirely changed that—even drone operators in Ukraine still lug heavy equipment over difficult terrain under fire. An experiment by the US Marine Corps showed that all-male crews tended to be faster or better at key tasks, such as loading artillery guns, moving ammunition and evacuating casualties, compared with units that included women. In practice, only tiny numbers of women will seek out infantry roles. Even fewer will meet the requisite standards. In Canada, which opened infantry roles to women 36 years ago, women make up 4% of that branch. In America it is 1.4%. Even in Ukraine’s war of survival, there are vanishingly few women serving in assault units.

But war is not just about ground close combat. Women serve daily as fighter pilots and aboard warships. Moreover, the soldiers at the front rely on support from the rear. That includes logistics, intelligence and engineering. Almost 9% of American field-artillery crews are women. In Afghanistan and Iraq, where the distinction between rear and front line often blurred, nearly 300,000 women served in America’s armed forces with distinction. The range and precision of modern missiles mean that women doing those ostensibly non-combat jobs are at considerable personal risk. Western armies, struggling to fill their ranks, need these women.

One problem is that armies have long accorded the greatest prestige to combat branches, recruiting commanders and generals disproportionately from them, assuming that only those with direct combat experience will have the authority to lead forces in battle. That need not be so. The Royal Air Force recently appointed an engineer, rather than a pilot, as a chief for the first time. The head of Finland’s army, one of Europe’s most capable, served in a signals regiment. The danger is that ambitious female soldiers, seeking promotion, will feel compelled to pursue combat roles for which they are typically less well suited. Modern armies that want to maximise the talent in their ranks should reflect on the pathways for promotion and the status accorded to different roles.

The next administration is likely to do the opposite. Mr Hegseth’s antipathy to women in combat is rooted in a belief that the Pentagon has gone “woke”. He and others in Mr Trump’s orbit believe that diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives have infected the armed forces, undermined combat effectiveness and eroded the warrior ethos. They have no evidence.

It is true, for instance, that the US Army did change standards for its basic fitness tests in 2022, allowing women to lift less weight and to take more time to complete runs. But studies conducted at the behest of the army showed that scores on the older, sex-neutral tests did not predict performance in combat or rates of injury. Female soldiers who want to serve in combat positions must still pass more demanding and specialised tests, which remain the same for men and women.

Mr Hegseth has vilified General Charles “CQ” Brown, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, and Admiral Lisa Franchetti, the chief of naval operations, suggesting that one got his job because he is black and the other because she is a woman. These attacks are not just baseless, but harmful and dangerous. America is at risk of losing its military edge over China. Mr Hegseth’s crusade risks driving out talented women and minorities from a force that needs them more than ever. ■