Pentagon orders review on ‘effectiveness’ of women in combat arms jobs
January 8, 2026
The Pentagon’s decision to commission a review of the “effectiveness” of women in combat arms roles marks a significant moment nearly ten years after these positions were formally opened to women. Framed around the enforcement of “elite, uniform, and sex-neutral” standards, the review - conducted by the Institute for Defense Analyses - will assess readiness, training outcomes, casualties, and deployability across the Army and Marine Corps. Officially, the rationale is operational: to ensure that combat standards are not diluted and that performance requirements reflect the realities of ground combat. However, the timing and rhetoric surrounding the review suggest that it is as much a political and cultural signal as a technical evaluation.
The review unfolds against a backdrop of longstanding ideological resistance to women in combat, most visibly associated with Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. Prior to assuming office, Hegseth publicly argued that integrating women into combat roles undermined lethality and reflected a progressive social agenda rather than military necessity. Although his position softened during his confirmation hearing—emphasizing equal standards rather than outright exclusion—his earlier statements continue to shape perceptions of the review’s intent. This raises concerns that “effectiveness” may be narrowly defined through a lens that privileges physical metrics while underplaying broader dimensions of military performance, such as cohesion, adaptability, and the evolving character of warfare.
More broadly, the review sits uneasily alongside the Department of Defense’s stated commitments to Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) principles, which emphasize inclusive participation as a force multiplier rather than a liability. With thousands of women already serving in infantry, armor, and artillery roles, the question is no longer whether women belong in combat, but how institutions assess success in modern military operations. If conducted rigorously and transparently, the review could reinforce the legitimacy of sex-neutral standards while affirming women’s contributions. If not, it risks reopening settled debates and reframing gender integration as an unresolved experiment rather than an established component of contemporary armed forces.
To read the full story, see here
January 8, 2026
Pentagon orders review on ‘effectiveness’ of women in combat arms jobs
January 8, 2026
The Pentagon’s decision to commission a review of the “effectiveness” of women in combat arms roles marks a significant moment nearly ten years after these positions were formally opened to women. Framed around the enforcement of “elite, uniform, and sex-neutral” standards, the review - conducted by the Institute for Defense Analyses - will assess readiness, training outcomes, casualties, and deployability across the Army and Marine Corps. Officially, the rationale is operational: to ensure that combat standards are not diluted and that performance requirements reflect the realities of ground combat. However, the timing and rhetoric surrounding the review suggest that it is as much a political and cultural signal as a technical evaluation.
The review unfolds against a backdrop of longstanding ideological resistance to women in combat, most visibly associated with Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. Prior to assuming office, Hegseth publicly argued that integrating women into combat roles undermined lethality and reflected a progressive social agenda rather than military necessity. Although his position softened during his confirmation hearing—emphasizing equal standards rather than outright exclusion—his earlier statements continue to shape perceptions of the review’s intent. This raises concerns that “effectiveness” may be narrowly defined through a lens that privileges physical metrics while underplaying broader dimensions of military performance, such as cohesion, adaptability, and the evolving character of warfare.
More broadly, the review sits uneasily alongside the Department of Defense’s stated commitments to Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) principles, which emphasize inclusive participation as a force multiplier rather than a liability. With thousands of women already serving in infantry, armor, and artillery roles, the question is no longer whether women belong in combat, but how institutions assess success in modern military operations. If conducted rigorously and transparently, the review could reinforce the legitimacy of sex-neutral standards while affirming women’s contributions. If not, it risks reopening settled debates and reframing gender integration as an unresolved experiment rather than an established component of contemporary armed forces.
To read the full story, see here
