Why Evidence, Readiness, and Inclusion Matter for U.S. Military Effectiveness

If the United States is serious about preparing its military for 21st century threats, our defense debates must be grounded in evidence, operational reality, and respect for those who serve. Personal narratives can be valuable when they illuminate broader truths, but they must be weighed alongside data and lived experience across the force. As we consider the future of American defense leadership, discussions about women in combat should reflect what decades of research and modern operations consistently demonstrate.

Women in combat are not a theoretical construct, they are a proven and integral part of the modern U.S. military.

Women have served the nation in uniform since its founding. From the Revolutionary War to Iraq and Afghanistan, their contributions have supported mission success across every era. Since 2015, when all combat roles were formally opened to women, their performance in some of the military’s most demanding operational environments has reinforced what many commanders and service members already understood.

That conclusion is not abstract for those who have served alongside women in combat zones. My own experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, and today working closely with Ukrainian forces under active wartime conditions, consistently proves the arguments against women in combat as false. In each environment, effectiveness came down to competence, trust, and leadership under pressure. Gender simply was not the deciding factor. Performance was.

Service members such as Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester, awarded the Silver Star for leadership during a combat engagement in Iraq, and Capt. Vernice “FlyGirl” Armour, the first Black female combat pilot, exemplified composure, leadership, and tactical proficiency under pressure. The list of distinguished service members is too lengthy to cite here. Their service reflects a broader pattern documented through operational assessments and after action reporting across the force.

These examples align with what many veterans, currently serving personnel, and I have observed first hand. In Iraq and Afghanistan, women routinely operated in environments that demanded rapid decision making, cultural awareness, and resilience under fire. Today, in Ukraine, Ive experienced women serving across combat, intelligence, logistics, medical, and command roles in a high intensity conflict. Their performance under sustained pressure further reinforces that claims questioning their role do not hold up to reality.

Extensive research demonstrates that integrating women into combat units does not reduce readiness, cohesion, or effectiveness. A 2020 RAND Corporation study found no statistically significant differences in unit cohesion or mission performance between gender integrated and all male units. In many cases, mixed teams demonstrated strong problem solving and adaptability, capabilities that are increasingly vital in complex operating environments.

This data mirrors my lived experience from coalition operations and partner forces. When standards are clear and leadership is competent, integrated teams function effectively because trust is built on performance, not identity.

The U.S. military maintains rigorous, role specific standards tied directly to mission requirements. Those standards remain unchanged. Women who earn combat assignments meet the same criteria as their peers. Graduates such as Capt. Kristen Griest and 1st Lt. Shaye Haver at Ranger School demonstrate that readiness is measured by preparation, competence, and leadership, not gender.

In practice, combat units do not succeed because standards are symbolic. They succeed because standards are enforced. Across Iraq, Afghanistan, and today in Ukraine, those who meet the standard are relied upon regardless of gender. That reality should guide policy discussions.

Despite this record, certain concerns continue to surface in public and policy debate. Available evidence and operational experience do not support them.

Research consistently shows that cohesion is built through trust, shared purpose, and professional competence. It is not dependent on gender homogeneity. Studies conducted by NATO and allied militaries including Israel and Norway find that gender integrated units perform as effectively as all male units when leadership is strong and expectations are clear.

This reflects what many service members have experienced directly. Cohesion is forged under stress, through shared risk and mutual reliance. It is earned through performance, not assumed through demographics.

Physicality should not be confused with lethality. Combat is physically demanding, and the military appropriately accounts for this through occupational and physical standards aligned with operational requirements. Those who meet these standards are qualified to serve. As modern warfare increasingly incorporates cyber operations, unmanned systems, information operations, and complex coordination across domains, cognitive agility, judgment, and leadership matter as much as physical endurance.

Rather than revisiting settled questions about eligibility, the Department of Defense should continue focusing on removing barriers that affect readiness, retention, and leadership development.

Women remain underrepresented at senior ranks. Expanding mentorship, professional development opportunities, and transparent promotion processes strengthens leadership capacity across the force and helps retain hard earned experience.

A professional military culture depends on fairness, accountability, and mutual respect. Highlighting leaders such as Lt. Col. Nicole Malachowski, the first female Thunderbird pilot, reinforces performance based standards and provides visible examples of excellence for the next generation.

Ensuring that equipment and protective gear fit a diverse force is a readiness issue. Properly designed body armor, helmets, and uniforms improve survivability, mobility, and operational effectiveness in real world conditions.

Addressing sexual harassment and assault is essential to readiness, morale, and trust. Independent oversight, transparent reporting, and survivor centered accountability mechanisms are necessary to maintain professionalism and institutional integrity across the services.

For those across the national security community, this moment calls for responsible leadership. Supporting women in combat is not about ideology. It is about ensuring the U.S. military remains capable, credible, and prepared for future challenges.

Policy debates should reflect what data, allied experience, and modern combat environments already show. Efforts to roll back inclusion ignore both evidence and operational reality. Leaders should resist those efforts and instead focus on strengthening standards, improving culture, and building a force that reflects the full range of talent willing to serve.

The question of women serving in combat roles has been answered by evidence, allied experience, and the battlefield itself. Integrating women across all roles strengthens mission effectiveness, reinforces democratic values, and ensures the United States can compete in an increasingly complex security environment.

Women are already serving with distinction. Our policies and leadership should continue to reflect that reality.