It’s been a mere three weeks since Donald Trump announced his intention to nominate former Fox News personality Pete Hegseth for secretary of defense.
In that time, it seems as though the country hasn’t gone more than a few days without stories popping up about Hegseth: an allegation of sexual assault (he reached a settlement with the accuser but maintained his innocence and wasn’t charged), episodes of alcoholic rage in public spaces, severe financial mismanagement and, according to reporting by The New Yorker, allegations of personal misconduct (which Hegseth denies) that allegedly led to his resignation from two nonprofit veterans’ groups he ran, as well as an undeniably bizarre story about a private email in which his mother accused him of abusive misogyny (she later told The New York Times that she regretted the email and apologized to him for it). And now, 10 current and former Fox News employees have told NBC News that Hegseth’s alleged drinking was a cause for concern in the workplace.
It all may tank his nomination, but I’ll never understand why the first story that came out about Hegseth wasn’t all we needed: his public comments that women shouldn’t be permitted to serve in combat roles.
It may tank his nomination, but I’ll never understand why the first story that came out about Hegseth wasn’t all we needed.
During a podcast interview just two weeks before he was tapped to lead the Pentagon, Hegseth opined: “I’m straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles. It hasn’t made us more effective. Hasn’t made us more lethal. Has made fighting more complicated.” Hegseth has also said, numerous times, that standards are being lowered for women to qualify to serve in combat roles, a claim for which there is no evidence and which has been repeatedly debunked by defense officials.
In the wake of the fervor over news of his comments — the first story that broke through following the announcement of his nomination — some of the country’s best-known military veterans blasted the notion. Mark Milley, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, responded to Hegseth: “Women have been in combat, and it doesn’t matter if that 762 (a large caliber bullet) hits you in the chest, no one gives a s— if it’s a woman or a guy who pulled the trigger.” Outgoing Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, himself the former head of U.S Central Command and vice chief of staff of the Army, agreed: “I have spent 41 years in uniform, three long tours in Iraq, one in Afghanistan, and everywhere I went on a battlefield, there were women in our formation. I would tell you that, you know, our women are the finest troops in the world.”
When I graduated from infantry basic training in 2006, it was pummeled into our heads by drill sergeants that women were ill-equipped for combat roles. Their reasons ranged from the bizarre and the inaccurate (women’s periods make them unfit) to the exceedingly creepy (women would be at risk of rape and threaten military readiness and unit cohesion) to the aggressively spurious (no woman can meet the physical standards of the job).
That last reason got closest to being within the ballpark of good faith, and I’ll be the first to say that if any woman can’t meet the standards of a combat position, she shouldn’t serve in that capacity, and I guarantee every woman currently serving in our armed forces would agree with me. Women in uniform don’t want special treatment; they want an equal opportunity to meet the same standard of excellence.
In 2013, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta removed the ban on women serving in combat roles. Some female service members were approved for combat courses that would lead to front-line positions and failed to meet the standard, but other women did meet the standard of excellence and went on to serve in direct combat units. More than 150 women have graduated from the Army’s Ranger School, nearly 10 have earned the coveted Green Beret, and several others serve in Navy and Air Force special operations roles, all under the exact same standards as their male counterparts.
When a male service member permanently fails a combat course (that would be most men), it’s typically viewed as a tough break but good on them for trying. The capability and competency of all males aren’t called into question because of those who don’t meet the standard. But when a woman fails a combat course because she fails to meet the standard, it somehow becomes, in the eyes of some, an indictment of the abilities of all women.
Women in uniform don’t want special treatment; they want an equal opportunity to meet the same standard of excellence.
I don’t think Hegseth truly believes that women are incapable of performing combat roles to a high standard of excellence, because it has been obvious to all service members for quite some time that there are women who meet and exceed that standard. His position has nothing to do with military readiness or unit cohesion or false concern over physical standards.
The reason Hegseth is stridently opposed to women in combat is specifically that he feels threatened by women who do meet the standard of excellence. He is deeply uncomfortable with women successfully doing the same exact jobs that he has always believed go a long way in promoting the asinine ideology that men are naturally born to be leaders over women.
Take away all the other scandals about Hegseth for a second, and you’re still left with a giant red flag that should have been disqualifying from the jump. He couldn’t have been clearer that he views all women as inherently inferior, which is not only completely at odds with the overwhelming evidence but also egregiously disrespectful to every woman who has served and is currently serving in combat roles with honor and excellence. It spits on the graves of every woman who has given her life for this country in uniform, many of them buried in Arlington.
That should have been the moment the country immediately rejected him as the choice to lead our nation’s military. In light of it, every story that followed was hardly surprising.
Become a member to join the discussion