Pete Hegseth-Men and women shouldn’t serve together in combat units
Pete Hegseth penned a book and spoke during interviews where he argued against the idea of integrating women and men in special forces and infantry units. Hegseth argued that this move has neither made these units more effective nor more lethal. He also argued that this move makes fighting more complicated. Despite Hegseth’s acknowledgement that women have effectively served in other roles in the military, roles that also experienced combat, his argument didn’t sit well with others.
From AP News:
“Who’s going to replace them? Men? And we’re having trouble recruiting men into the Army right now,” said Lory Manning, a retired Navy captain who works with the Service Women’s Action Network.
The military services have struggled for years to meet recruiting goals, facing stiff competition from companies that pay more and offer similar or better benefits. And a growing population of young people aren’t interested in joining or can’t meet the physical, academic and moral requirements.
Removing women from contention for jobs, said Manning, could force the services to lower standards to bring in more men who have not graduated high school, have criminal records or score too low on physical and mental tests.
Lawmakers are divided on Hegseth’s views.
“Where do you think I lost my legs, in a bar fight? I’m pretty sure I was in combat when that happened,” snapped Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., in an CNN interview last Wednesday after Trump’s selection was announced.
Duckworth, who flew combat missions in Iraq and lost both legs when her helicopter was hit, added, “It just shows how out of touch he is with the nature of modern warfare if he thinks that we can keep women behind that sort of imaginary line.”
Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., praised Hegseth and said the reality is that certain military jobs “just need brute strength. ” But he added, “women have served incredibly well, honorably in combat roles, and I don’t think that policy is going to change, but we’ll leave it up to him.”
Steven Cheung, a spokesman for the Trump transition, said Hegseth has dedicated his life to supporting American troops and his country, and cited his service in Iraq and Afghanistan and two Bronze Stars.
“He is an incredibly tough and smart candidate that will fight to put America first. With Pete as our secretary of defense, America’s enemies are on notice and our military will be great again,” Cheung said.
Additional Reading:
Baldor, L. C. (2024, November 19). Should women be allowed to fight on the front lines? Trump’s defense pick reignites the debate. AP News. Link.
Category: Military issues
Duckworth was a DEI pilot with low flight hours for a reason.
Change my mind.
Her reading comprehension seems to be lacking as well. She completely missed the point Hegseth was making. I’m sure it was intentional, just to stir the pot.
I don’t know about her being a DEI pick, but because she only listens to the left’s soundbites she did not hear his whole statement. Duckworth would have still been able to lose her legs serving in an Army under Sec Def Hegseth, he is not against females serving. Even in certain combat roles, like MP, pilot, and even artillery, and of course all the combat support roles. What he is against is the front line roles where they had to lower the standards to ensure they had enough females in a unit to make it worth while, such as forcing Female Officers into the Infantry (not that they don’t do the same with males), and them awarding them with a platoon or Company when they refused to go to Ranger School…ahead of their fully qualified male peers.
“And we’re having trouble recruiting men into the Army right now,”
Gee, I wonder why that would be?
Leftists are seemingly incapable of connecting cause and effect. Or they just don’t want to.
Navy ships should also be segregated by sex. I admit I only did one cruise with an integrated crew before I retired, but that was enough to convince me that it was a bad idea.
Introduces a whole new raft of problems into an already stressful, dangerous and difficult environment with zero benefits to anything other than satisfying a political agenda.
In my day, females we only on destroyer/submarine tenders, so I have no frame of reference. However, my son is on active duty, and his rate (IT) has more females than say anything in Engineering. He even has a female Chief, but he’s grown up in a different world. He’s also kind of oblivious to women because he’s big into tech & gaming.
In the 80’s, we had 1 female out of 40 in my A-School. Her presence distracted half of my class as they were falling all over each other to try and impress/get her attention. A friend served on the L.Y. Spear (AS-36), and some (not all) of the female techs took advantage of guys in the shops. He said it was sad to watch guys fawn all over some chick that has what you would expect a female welder/electrician/machinist to look like.
Where has Lori Manning been for the last 100 years? That’s just called Tuesday.
I served with a lot of excellent female Soldiers in my 24 years, some as leaders, some as peers, some as subordinates. They served right beside the males, in some real shit situations, and served admirably. But enough about the Signal Corps. Hegseth is right. What works in the rest of the Army is a recipe for disaster in units that are expected to close with, engage, and destroy the enemy. I put no stock in the comments by Duckworth or any other congresscritter with no skin in the game.
Duckworth gave up a lot of skin in the game already.
I also served with plenty of women who ranged from shit bags to outstanding soldiers. I have zero issues with women serving in any role… If and only if, they meet the exact same standards as men.
Some jobs are tough even for most men to earn. If they were easy they probably wouldn’t be worth all the trouble. If they can’t do it they are a liability, just like any man who can’t do it either. Lowering the standards for everyone for women to somehow be eligible is an even worse idea as it cheapens everything.