As a woman veteran, I approach Pete Hegseth’s “The War on Warriors” not as an abstract policy debate but as a direct challenge to my service and that of thousands of women who have worn the uniform with distinction. Hegseth argues that “woke” policies—particularly the integration of women into combat roles and diversity initiatives—have fundamentally weakened the American military, replacing warrior culture with political correctness and merit with identity politics. This review examines whether his claims withstand empirical scrutiny. The answer, supported by decades of peer-reviewed research, international operational data, and measurable outcomes, is unequivocally no.
The Standards Myth
Hegseth’s most persistent claim centers on physical standards: he insists they’ve been systematically lowered to accommodate women, thereby compromising combat effectiveness. This assertion crumbles under examination.
The military’s own research contradicts this narrative. Sharp et al.’s 2008 Army Research Institute study, “Physical Fitness and Occupational Performance of Women in the U.S. Army,” tracked women’s performance across multiple military occupational specialties over extended periods. The findings were clear: women who meet operationally-relevant standards perform effectively in their roles, with job performance correlating to standard attainment rather than gender. The Marine Corps’ Infantry Officer Course provides even more compelling evidence. When IOC opened to women, standards remained identical. Early female candidates failed at high rates—not because standards were too high, but precisely because they weren’t lowered. The women who eventually completed the course met the exact same standards as their male counterparts, demonstrating that rigorous standards and integration are entirely compatible.
International evidence spanning decades reinforces this conclusion. Norway has integrated women into all combat roles since 1985—forty years of operational data. Ellingsen’s 2013 comprehensive study for the Norwegian Institute for Defence Studies found no evidence of standard degradation. Norwegian forces maintained rigorous standards while achieving some of NATO’s highest operational readiness ratings throughout integration. Canada’s experience following 1989 integration tells the same story. Febbraro and Goldenberg’s 2010 Defence Research and Development Canada analysis documented successful integration when standards were maintained, identifying leadership commitment rather than standard modification as the critical success factor.
When standards do change, careful analysis typically reveals improved methodology rather than political accommodation. Colonel Ellen Haring’s 2014 analysis in Parameters argued that many historical military standards were male-normed—designed around average male physiology rather than derived from actual operational requirements. The solution isn’t lowering standards but developing genuinely operationally-relevant, gender-neutral standards. This distinction matters: the problem isn’t integration requiring compromised standards, but historical standards being improperly calibrated in the first place.
Caroline Criado Perez’s “Invisible Women” provides crucial context often missing from this debate. Her research documents how military equipment designed exclusively for male physiology creates artificial performance barriers. Body armor sized for male torsos impedes movement for smaller frames. Weapon systems designed for male hand dimensions compromise marksmanship for different proportions. Load distribution systems optimized for male biomechanics create unnecessary strain. Properly designed equipment that accounts for physiological variation enables performance previously deemed impossible. The barrier wasn’t biological capability but engineering failure.
As a woman veteran who met required standards, Hegseth’s claims feel particularly insulting. My qualifications were questioned not because I failed requirements but because assumptions about gender suggested standards must have been reduced. This created an impossible situation: excel and face claims that standards are too easy; struggle with any aspect and have it attributed to gender rather than the normal learning curve all service members experience. The women I served alongside faced identical scrutiny, our accomplishments routinely attributed to accommodation rather than achievement.
The Cohesion Fallacy
Hegseth claims gender integration destroys unit cohesion, introducing sexual tension and divided loyalties that undermine combat effectiveness. This argument isn’t just wrong—it’s been wrong repeatedly throughout military history.
Research on what actually creates military cohesion contradicts Hegseth’s assumptions. Mullen and Cooper’s 1994 meta-analysis in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology examined 49 studies on cohesion and performance. Their finding was definitive: task cohesion—shared commitment to mission—predicts performance significantly better than social cohesion based on interpersonal bonds. Units bond through shared hardship, professional respect, and common purpose, not demographic homogeneity. Jonathan Shay’s “Achilles in Vietnam,” based on extensive work with combat veterans, identifies trust in leadership, confidence in competence, and shared sacrifice as cohesion’s foundations. Gender homogeneity appears nowhere in his analysis.
The cohesion argument isn’t original to gender integration debates. When President Truman ordered racial integration in 1948, opponents made identical predictions: white soldiers wouldn’t bond with Black soldiers, unit cohesion would collapse, combat effectiveness would suffer, military tradition would be destroyed. These predictions proved entirely unfounded. The military successfully integrated racially through leadership commitment and equal standards. Sixty years later, the same arguments emerged against openly gay service members. The Palm Center’s 2008 comprehensive analysis documented dire predictions about unit cohesion that never materialized when Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was repealed in 2011.
Now these arguments reappear against women in combat, revealing a pattern: such claims reflect institutional resistance to change rather than empirical prediction. The consistency of failed predictions should prompt skepticism about current iterations.
International operational data provides the conclusive evidence Hegseth ignores. Febbraro’s 2007 empirical study of Canadian Armed Forces measured cohesion following gender integration and found no degradation in unit cohesion scores. Leadership quality—not demographic composition—predicted outcomes. Norway’s decades of experience shows the same pattern. If gender integration inherently destroyed cohesion as Hegseth claims, forty years of Norwegian operational data would reveal it. Instead, their military maintains high cohesion and effectiveness while successfully operating in demanding NATO missions alongside the United States.
The sexual tension argument Hegseth emphasizes particularly fails scrutiny. Professional military culture already regulates sexual behavior through UCMJ, fraternization policies, and sexual harassment prevention. These exist regardless of gender integration. Moreover, same-sex attraction exists in all-male units—as acknowledgment of LGBTQ+ service confirms. If sexual attraction inherently destroyed cohesion, all-male units would already be compromised. The argument also insults male soldiers by suggesting they cannot maintain professionalism around female colleagues—hardly the warrior competence Hegseth claims to champion.
Having served in mixed-gender units, I witnessed firsthand what research confirms: professional relationships can form successfully when leadership establishes clear standards and consequences. Suggesting men couldn’t maintain discipline around women patronizes their professionalism while infantilizing women as disruptive presences rather than capable colleagues.
The DEI Distortion
Hegseth characterizes diversity, equity, and inclusion programs as Marxist indoctrination prioritizing identity over competence. This caricature bears little resemblance to actual military DEI initiatives and creates a false opposition between diversity and merit.
The Department of Defense’s diversity programs, documented in CNA Corporation’s 2016 analysis, focus on eliminating barriers to qualified candidates, addressing bias in evaluation systems, ensuring talent development for all personnel, and creating inclusive climates that retain talent. These are standard organizational development practices used by high-performing organizations globally, not ideological indoctrination.
Research demonstrates diversity and meritocracy are complementary rather than contradictory. Scott Page’s “The Diversity Bonus” provides mathematical models showing cognitively diverse teams outperform homogeneous high-ability teams in complex problem-solving—directly relevant to modern military operations requiring adaptive decision-making. General Stanley McChrystal’s “Team of Teams,” drawing on his experience commanding Joint Special Operations Command, argues from operational reality that diverse perspectives enhance organizational effectiveness in complex environments. McChrystal isn’t a political theorist imposing external ideology; he’s a combat commander describing what worked against adaptive enemies.
Implicit bias research explains why DEI initiatives serve rather than undermine meritocracy. Banaji and Greenwald’s “Blindspot” documents how unconscious bias affects evaluation even among well-intentioned evaluators. Malcolm Gladwell’s “Blink” showed that orchestras using blind auditions discovered their previous evaluation systems had systematically undervalued qualified women. The “merit” system was biased without anyone intending bias. DEI training addressing these dynamics doesn’t lower standards—it helps ensure merit-based evaluation actually occurs rather than demographic assumptions masquerading as merit assessment.
Hegseth conflates DEI programs with lowered standards, but this reflects either misunderstanding or deliberate misrepresentation. DEI focuses on fair evaluation and opportunity access. Standards are separate policy decisions. One can maintain rigorous standards while ensuring fair assessment—indeed, that’s DEI’s purpose. When standards are lowered inappropriately, that’s a standards problem requiring correction regardless of diversity considerations.
The military’s own research supports diversity’s value. The Congressional Research Service’s analysis reviewing multiple integration efforts concluded diversity functioned as a “force multiplier” when properly implemented. The Institute for Defense Analyses’ 2017 implementation assessment found diversity initiatives hadn’t compromised readiness. These aren’t advocacy organizations with ideological agendas; they’re government research institutions providing non-partisan analysis.
As a veteran, I’ve witnessed how diverse perspectives enhance problem-solving and operational effectiveness. Different backgrounds, experiences, and approaches strengthen military capability by expanding the range of solutions available for complex problems. Dismissing this as “wokeness” ignores both research evidence and operational reality.
The Warrior Culture Confusion
Hegseth argues that effective military culture requires masculine warrior ethos incompatible with female presence, suggesting women’s inclusion feminizes and weakens military culture. This claim conflates professional military excellence with exclusionary practices while misunderstanding both warrior culture and modern warfare requirements.
Martin Cook’s philosophical analysis, “The Warrior Culture of the U.S. Marines,” distinguishes authentic warrior ethos—discipline, sacrifice, commitment to mission and comrades—from toxic masculinity. True warrior culture centers on professional excellence, not gender exclusivity. J. Glenn Gray’s “The Warriors,” written by a World War II veteran and philosopher, explores what sustains soldiers in combat: meaning, comradeship, and moral framework. None requires gender homogeneity.
Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman’s “On Killing” demonstrates that most soldiers historically resist killing, and effectiveness comes from training and conditioning rather than inherent aggression. “Natural warriors” are myth—effective soldiers are created through professional development. This understanding undermines Hegseth’s implication that aggressive masculinity equals combat effectiveness.
Hegseth’s warrior culture is also historically selective. Vikings had warrior culture—and female warriors whose historical existence is now archaeologically confirmed. Ancient Scythians included women warriors. Soviet female snipers and pilots in World War II were extraordinarily effective. Various African warrior societies included women. “Warrior culture” excluding women is a specific cultural construction, not a universal military requirement across time and space.
Moreover, Hegseth’s model assumes warfare remains primarily physical combat, ignoring modern military operations’ actual character. Contemporary warfare includes cyber operations requiring technical expertise, intelligence analysis requiring analytical skills, drone operations requiring hand-eye coordination and decision-making, information operations requiring cultural understanding, and counterinsurgency requiring relationship-building. P.W. Singer’s “Wired for War” documents warfare’s technological transformation where physical strength increasingly matters less than cognitive capability and technical proficiency.
General Rupert Smith’s “The Utility of Force” argues warfare has fundamentally transformed from interstate industrial war to “war amongst the people”—operations within civilian populations requiring cultural sensitivity, coalition coordination, and political sophistication alongside military capability. In this context, cognitive diversity and varied perspectives provide operational advantages.
As a woman veteran, I embodied warrior ethos: commitment to mission, willingness to sacrifice, professional excellence, and loyalty to comrades. My gender didn’t preclude these qualities. Suggesting it does insults not just my service but the fundamental principle that character and competence, not demographics, define warriors. The warrior ethos Hegseth claims to defend should be defined inclusively around shared values rather than exclusionary demographics.
The Methodological Failure
Beyond specific factual errors, Hegseth’s methodology renders his conclusions unreliable for serious analysis. He relies extensively on anecdotal evidence—individual stories selected to support predetermined conclusions—while ignoring systematic research. When confronted with contradictory evidence like decades of successful international integration, he simply dismisses it without analysis.
Rigorous analysis requires actively seeking disconfirming evidence, establishing falsifiable hypotheses, proportionally weighing evidence quality, and updating beliefs based on evidence. Hegseth’s approach violates each principle, demonstrating systematic confirmation bias. He presents women’s failures as evidence of inherent inability while dismissing women’s successes as evidence of lowered standards, creating an unfalsifiable position where no evidence could challenge his conclusions.
For comparison, the Army Research Institute’s studies, Congressional Research Service analyses, and international military research employ transparent methodologies, representative samples, measurable outcomes, and systematic analysis. They follow peer-review processes where methodology faces expert scrutiny. Hegseth’s work undergoes no such verification, representing personal polemic rather than scholarly analysis.
The logical fallacies permeating his argument further undermine credibility. He employs post hoc reasoning, assuming integration caused all subsequent problems while ignoring confounding variables like budget constraints and operational tempo. He creates false dichotomies, presenting “warrior culture OR diversity” when these aren’t mutually exclusive. He appeals to tradition as if historical practice justifies current policy regardless of effectiveness evidence. He constructs straw men, claiming advocates want no standards when no serious proponents argue this.
The International Evidence He Ignores
Perhaps most damning for Hegseth’s thesis is his near-complete disregard for international evidence. Norway, Canada, Israel, Australia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, and Sweden have all integrated women into ground combat positions. The Congressional Research Service’s 2015 comparative analysis examined these nations and found consistent patterns: proper implementation yielded successful integration without effectiveness degradation.
These aren’t incompetent militaries. Norway maintains some of NATO’s highest readiness ratings. Canada deploys alongside U.S. forces in joint operations. Israel operates in arguably more demanding combat environments than current U.S. operations. If integration inherently undermined effectiveness as Hegseth claims, this pattern wouldn’t exist across diverse military cultures and contexts.
Dismissing all international evidence requires explaining why every other NATO member can integrate successfully but the United States cannot. This position suggests American exceptionalism where the exceptional quality is inability rather than capability—contradicting the U.S. military’s historical adaptability and excellence.
What This Debate Really Reveals
Understanding this debate requires recognizing it as the latest iteration of a recurring pattern. Every major military integration effort has faced claims about inherent incompatibility, predictions of effectiveness collapse, arguments about unit cohesion destruction, concerns about lowered standards, and appeals to tradition. And every successful integration has involved leadership commitment, maintenance of clear standards, infrastructure adaptation, time for cultural adjustment, and accountability for resistance.
The arguments against women in combat mirror those against racial integration with remarkable precision. Both predict catastrophe. Both invoke unit cohesion. Both claim tradition’s importance. Both warn about effectiveness decline. The difference is that racial integration’s critics are now recognized as wrong. History will likely render similar judgment on gender integration’s opponents.
This isn’t to claim integration is perfect or without challenges. Implementation requires serious attention to standards, leadership development, infrastructure adaptation, and cultural evolution. International experience shows success requires institutional commitment, not mere policy announcement. But challenges requiring thoughtful implementation differ fundamentally from impossibility requiring categorical exclusion.
Conclusion: Evidence Over Ideology
Pete Hegseth’s “The War on Warriors” ultimately fails because it privileges ideology over evidence, nostalgia over adaptation, and exclusion over merit-based excellence. His claims about lowered standards contradict military research and international operational data. His predictions about cohesion collapse ignore research on what actually creates military cohesion and decades of successful integration experience. His characterization of DEI misrepresents organizational development programs while creating false opposition between diversity and merit. His invocation of warrior culture conflates professional excellence with demographic exclusivity.
For academic or professional purposes, the book lacks the rigor necessary for serious policy analysis. It relies on anecdotal evidence, employs logical fallacies, and ignores robust contradictory research. Most significantly, it dismisses the lived experience and documented competence of thousands of women who’ve served with distinction.
As a woman veteran, I’ve met the standards, served effectively, and embodied warrior ethos as fully as any male counterpart. Hegseth’s framework suggests my presence inherently weakened the military. The evidence—from peer-reviewed research, international operational experience, and measurable outcomes—doesn’t support this claim. The question isn’t whether women can serve effectively in combat roles. International experience and American women’s performance answer affirmatively. The question is whether American military culture will embrace evidence-based policy or cling to ideologically-driven exclusion.
The military’s strength lies in its ability to adapt, innovate, and optimize performance. This requires following evidence wherever it leads, not defending predetermined conclusions. Books like “The War on Warriors” ultimately disserve military readiness by promoting ideology over evidence and exclusion over merit. The warrior ethos Hegseth claims to defend—excellence, adaptability, mission focus—demands better. It demands decisions based on what works rather than what feels traditional. And the evidence is clear: qualified women warriors strengthen rather than weaken the force that defends our nation.