From the value of allies to the importance of keeping secret communications secret, I have disagreed with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on many things. We’ve had different backgrounds, experiences and incentives that have shaped our very different perspectives.
It’s no secret that I strongly opposed his earlier stance and comments against allowing women in combat arms. But I have to give credit where credit is due: His recent order that the military adopt a sex-neutral fitness standard for combat arms branches is not just reasonable — it’s the right policy.
The March 30 order directed all military branches to end separate fitness standards for men and women in combat arms occupation. Gender-normed standards have been left in place for non-combat roles.
The directive requires the services to submit their change plans by the end of May, and implement them by the end of the fiscal year. Already, the Army has announced its plan to implement sex-neutral fitness standards for 21 combat arms jobs beginning in June.
In a previous lifetime, I was the commander of one of the Army’s first sex-integrated infantry companies. Back then, amid a wave of bad-faith arguments in the press, I wrote an op-ed describing my experience. In it, I tried to have an honest conversation about the ground truth and what it actually meant to have women in the infantry.
I was frustrated that everyone was yelling past each other. One side screamed that women were biologically unfit, citing hormones, physiology and unit cohesion. The other side insisted that women had to be integrated, largely because not doing so hurt women’s promotion potential and failed to meet diversity goals.
I staked out what I thought was a reasonable position: allow women in combat arms, and require them to meet the same standards as anyone else. No quotas, no shortcuts, just standards appropriate for the job, applied to everyone equally.
The piece caused a stir. It was cited as a lead expert opinion in a case before the Supreme Court of India regarding women serving in the navy there. It was grossly misquoted in a United Nations report on equal opportunity for women in defense. The article was controversial enough that no public affairs or legal officer would approve it, and it took approval from the Pentagon to publish.
Despite the chaos, no one seemed to read past where I said women should be allowed in the infantry — the celebration and condemnation stopped there. It felt like everyone skipped my argument that “women should continue to serve in combat arms roles under age- and gender-neutral, combat-focused standards.”
That’s still my position today. Which brings us back to Hegseth.
Given that he recently stated, “straight up … we should not have women in combat roles,” it would have been reasonable to assume he would follow through on his threats and send the military back a decade. When he was nominated to be secretary of Defense, I told Fox News that I didn’t understand why someone in that role would be more interested in turning away soldiers who are willing and able to fight and refighting culture wars than in preparing our military to fight real ones.
So when he expressed his change of heart about women in combat arms during his confirmation hearings, I figured it was perfunctory or performative. I didn’t expect much — these days, it seems like it’s the norm for most high-level nominees to say one thing during questioning, then do the opposite when it’s time to govern.
But Hegseth followed through. And whatever else is going on at the Pentagon and in D.C. right now, this is one policy I can fully support.
As a company commander, some of my favorite memories about this issue came from watching some of my female soldiers max their physical fitness test scores — and then keep going. Afterwards, I’d congratulate them on their perfect scores, and they’d respond with frustration, “It was only a 94 percent on the men’s scale.”
Most of them didn’t want special treatment. They didn’t want to slip through just to fill a quota. They were there because they asked to be and because they wanted to do the job — and do it well.
That’s exactly the spirit we want in the men and women we entrust to fight on the front lines of our nation’s wars. The men and women who don’t have that mentality and capability (and let the record reflect, there are plenty of men and women in that category) are the ones who don’t belong in combat arms.
Of course, we should remain vigilant. Given Hegseth’s past rhetoric, it’s more than fair to wonder whether he is simply testing the waters for more malicious policies more in line with his previously stated beliefs.
But we also shouldn’t reflexively oppose good policy just because we don’t like the person introducing it. If we can separate the policy from the person, and our emotions from the argument, we should be able to agree that this policy is a win for a more capable and more lethal military. By the same token, this is not an endorsement of Hegseth but of the standard — one that is long overdue and too often distorted in the culture war.
As I wrote in 2019, we should never weaken standards just to meet quotas. We need people — regardless of sex — who are eager, ready and able to meet the demands of the job.
So, yes — let’s give credit where credit is due. I couldn’t have imagined saying this six months ago, but here we are: Good job, Secretary Hegseth.
Micah Ables is a former active-duty U.S. Army infantry officer. He led an all-male heavy weapons infantry platoon on a deployment to Afghanistan and led a mixed-gender mechanized infantry company on a rotation to Poland and Georgia. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Department of the Army or Department of Defense.