I served in Iraq. Trump's Defense nominee Hegseth is wrong about women in combat.
As a woman who served in Iraq with an infantry unit, I bring firsthand knowledge of what it takes to work and thrive in one of the most demanding environments our military has to offer.
I used to serve with guys like Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to lead the U.S. Department of Defense, so his public comment, made on a podcast this month – "I'm straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles" – did not shock me.
This isn’t a unique statement, but an unfounded belief by a minority of men who feel threatened by strong women in uniform.
Regardless, with Hegseth’s nomination, I felt inclined to remind the Army National Guard veteran and Fox News commentator that with women now a significant portion of our armed forces, it would be not only outdated but strategically misguided to exclude us from combat.
As a woman who served in Iraq with an infantry unit, I bring firsthand knowledge of what it takes to work and thrive in one of the most demanding environments our military has to offer. The concept that women can’t, or shouldn’t, be in combat ignores the strength, resilience and skill that women have repeatedly demonstrated on the battlefield.
I have stood shoulder to shoulder with men and women who trained just as hard as I did, who faced the same dangers and who handled themselves with professionalism and courage. I didn’t need special treatment or lowered standards – I needed and sought the same opportunities to serve my country as any other soldier.
History has shown that when we exclude others simply based on gender or race, we miss out on brilliant leaders and skilled soldiers who are committed to the mission.
In today’s complex global landscape, the military cannot afford to lose out on any talent.
And perhaps – if we were to truly reexamine the underachievement in our military ranks and engagements over the past few decades – the only consistent liability would, in fact, be men.
So, we might ask, why does the military persist in privileging men in combat roles despite the mounting evidence of inefficacy?
In the wake of wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, rethinking military success
For centuries, men have been at the forefront of combat, lionized as quintessential warriors defending nations and ideals. Yet as we assess the outcomes of recent military conflicts, it’s impossible to ignore an uncomfortable reality: Modern wars are frequently stalemated, mismanaged or outright lost.
This pattern of underachievement in global military engagements suggests that traditional ideas of combat leadership and participation – dominated by men – deserves a hard reevaluation.
The wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan serve as stark reminders of prolonged engagements with ambiguous or disappointing and often devastating outcomes. Despite the unparalleled technological and financial resources of modern militaries, the strategies often employed by male-dominated command structures have resulted in immense human and economic costs, without clear victories.
The historical reliance on male aggression and hierarchical decision-making seems to be ill-suited to the complexities of today’s asymmetric warfare ‒ in which diplomacy, cultural understanding and adaptability often prove more critical than brute force.
Beyond simply “proving we belong,” women have brought skills to combat situations that are increasingly essential in modern warfare.
What do female soldiers bring to combat?
Research and practical experience have shown that women are often strong negotiators and possess exceptional skills in de-escalating tense situations. In combat zones, where civilians and soldiers are often entangled in complex social dynamics, the ability to establish trust and manage negotiations can be a lifeline.
Women’s presence in these roles isn’t just symbolic. It’s strategic. We can bring calm to crisis and empathy to engagements, qualities that can prevent unnecessary bloodshed, and win hearts and minds – essential goals in any military operation.
Women have repeatedly proved our capabilities in warfare, excelling in leadership, strategic thinking and resilience under pressure. Far from being overly cautious or passive, women have demonstrated the ability to channel aggression effectively when the situation demands it, as seen in our success as snipers, intelligence operatives and combat pilots. Female soldiers have been instrumental in some of the most critical operations, showcasing the grit and ferocity required for the battlefield while maintaining the adaptability and precision often lacking in male-dominated forces.
The blend of strategic aggression and calculated restraint that women often bring to warfare is not only effective but essential.
This approach contrasts with the reckless overreach sometimes seen in male-led operations, offering a more balanced, effective and ethical response to the human complexities of modern combat.
Don't ignore bad behavior of male soldiers in war zones
Which leads to another harsh but necessary truth to examine: the impact of some male behavior in war zones. Men often pose a direct threat to the safety and well-being of women and children, including those they are meant to protect and even their own comrades.
The problem doesn’t stop at interpersonal violence.
Male-dominated units have been implicated in atrocities against civilians, undermining moral authority and strategic objectives in war zones.
Women and children caught in the crossfire often bear the brunt of these violations. Such behavior not only inflicts irreparable harm, it also fuels resentment and resistance among local populations, further destabilizing already volatile regions.
These failures aren’t isolated incidents. They're systemic issues rooted in unchecked aggression that flourishes in hypermasculine military environments.
Our military ranks have also been repeatedly plagued by cases of sexual misconduct, ranging from harassment to assault. This unchecked behavior weakens our forces by eroding trust within the chain of command and showcasing a disturbing lack of accountability at the highest levels.
When those entrusted with leadership fail to uphold ethical standards, it undermines morale, cohesion and the institution’s ability to effectively carry out its mission.
Consider this: If the same fail rate exhibited by male soldiers – whether in combat performance, strategic leadership or ethical accountability – were applied to women, we would have been pulled from the front lines long ago. Women in the military are often held to impossibly high standards, with any mistake or shortcoming scrutinized as evidence of our unsuitability for combat.
Combat roles and military leadership should not be treated as the default domains of men. Entrenched gender biases, coupled with a reluctance to challenge traditional norms, prevent military institutions from embracing the diversity and innovation required to adapt to modern challenges.
Over time, women and gender-diverse individuals have demonstrated exceptional capabilities in leadership, strategy and teamwork. Research suggests that organizations with diverse leadership outperform those with homogeneity, a principle that could also apply to the military.
By shifting away from male-centric combat roles, we open the door to innovative thinking and new strategies that prioritize holistic and sustainable solutions over outdated notions of conquest and dominance.
Women earned their combat roles
On the same podcast, Hegseth stated, "The dumbest phrase on planet earth in the military is 'Our diversity is our strength.’ ”
I would argue that what makes our military strong is not rigid adherence to old prejudices ‒ but the ability to adapt and grow. Our military is absolutely stronger when it reflects the diversity of the nation it defends. Women have long proved that we belong in combat, whether in infantry units, on submarines or in the skies above conflict zones.
To be very clear, I'm not undermining the bravery or sacrifices of the countless men who have served in combat roles. Their contributions are undeniable, and deeply respected. However, we must ask ourselves whether clinging to traditional gender norms in warfare is the most effective way to achieve peace and security in the 21st century.
To all the women serving in combat roles: Stay strong, push forward and know that we’ve earned every right to be here.
Kathleen Taylor Logan was raised in Oxford, Michigan, and is a U.S. Army veteran. This column originally appeared in the Detroit Free Press.