Since Pete Hegseth was confirmed as Secretary of Defense,
I’ve been waiting for him to do something meaningful. In my mind, that would be firing large swaths
of flag officers. He hasn’t done that
and I’m disappointed. However, he’s just
announced something that may be significant … if he implements it correctly and
ruthlessly. He’s announced that all
personnel in combat specialties will have to meet a single physical fitness
standard.
The obvious potential flaw in this is that, yes, the military will establish a single standard but that it will be watered down so that women can pass it which is what has happened in the past. Here’s exactly what he had to say,
A single standard is useless unless it’s a high standard. Will he hold the military to a high standard? I doubt it but I’m willing to be pleasantly surprised.
As the article notes,
If Hegseth establishes a single, high standard, it will have the effect of virtually eliminating women from combat roles – as I’ve been calling for all along. Will Hegseth have the courage and fortitude to stand up to the inevitable outcry from the Democrats in Congress? Again, I doubt it but I’m willing to be pleasantly surprised.
Fair warning: we’re not going to address the political or
social aspects of this – only the impact on military effectiveness. Comment accordingly.
____________________________
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth ordered the military services to require everyone who serves in a combat specialty to meet the same physical fitness standard.[1]
The obvious potential flaw in this is that, yes, the military will establish a single standard but that it will be watered down so that women can pass it which is what has happened in the past. Here’s exactly what he had to say,
I'm signing this memorandum today. The services will review and see that we have nothing but the highest and equal standards for men and women in combat.[1]
A single standard is useless unless it’s a high standard. Will he hold the military to a high standard? I doubt it but I’m willing to be pleasantly surprised.
Every time a gender-neutral physical fitness test is rolled out, it has two results: Most men aren't challenged, and most women can't pass.[1]
If Hegseth establishes a single, high standard, it will have the effect of virtually eliminating women from combat roles – as I’ve been calling for all along. Will Hegseth have the courage and fortitude to stand up to the inevitable outcry from the Democrats in Congress? Again, I doubt it but I’m willing to be pleasantly surprised.
https://redstate.com/streiff/2025/03/31/pete-hegseth-requires-everyone-in-combat-units-to-meet-the-same-physical-fitness-standards-n2187346
This was tried before, we will see if they are more successful this time around. For example, for the Army, The Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT) was developed to more closely measure "combat-readiness", after it was found that more battlefield evacuations were performed during the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan due to muscular and skeletal injuries than were due to the ongoing fighting. Such injuries were also significant contributing factors in the attrition rate for current service members. It was also designed to address the "declining health and fitness standards of incoming recruits".
ReplyDeleteThe ACFT began development in 2013 and was based on a set of 113 essential "warrior tasks and drills" laid out in army doctrine, as well as feedback from those who had completed tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. The test replaced the United States Army Physical Fitness Test in October 2022.
Before being finalized, the ACFT went through several changes, essentially gutting the efficacy of the new combat standard. At the risk of getting political, I think these facts are instructive, the Obama administration started the new more challenging and comprehensive gender-neutral standard, the Trump administration made no changes and the Biden administration was responsible for watering down the standards. Such changes included removal of the leg tuck and replacing it with a plank and changing scores to be age and gender dependent. Initially, the ACFT was planned to be scored without regard for age and gender. Instead, soldiers were assigned to one of three tiers based on their military occupational specialty. However, this 'do-not-adjust' policy caused a debate whether it would penalize women and overshadow expertise and intellectual preparations ultimately causing the administration to cave to political pressure. Eventually, age and gender-based scoring was introduced including reduced standards in some categories where women only had to complete less than half the number of repetitions as men. I have zero confidence in Hegseth, but on this one, I am rooting for him.
Question, do transport pilots and remote drone pilots have physical fitness standards the same as soldiers and sailers?
ReplyDelete"...do transport pilots and remote drone pilots have physical fitness standards the same as soldiers and sailers?"
DeleteSomething to keep in mind on this. We're talking here about the minimum standards.
There isn't any combat arms soldier whose focus is on passing the minimum standards.
Their focus is wholly on the maximum, getting as close to 100% on their fitness test as they can get.
Lutefisk
On topic. Jeesh, talking about a double edged sword. Great changes bundled with clearly short sighted, dangerous and political changes. So frustrating!
ReplyDeletehttps://www.yahoo.com/news/training-army-says-no-longer-201132446.html
The US government needs to first determine WHAT it wants its military to do. After the Cold War ended, the Army and Marine Corps were deployed on countless UN peacekeeping missions, which then forced the services to increase recruitment of women, because not enough men were joining the "all-volunteer force." The subsequent War on Terror and its many deployments then stressed all services and their service members- including those in the Navy and Air Force- to the breaking point.
ReplyDeleteShould the US government lower standards so more volunteers- male AND female alike- can join? Maintain standards, but reduce deployments and worldwide commitments, so the military can make do with what service members it has? Implement a draft and impressment, i.e., Navy press gangs, to have enough men to perform the many missions demanded of its military? Someone needs to answer those questions BEFORE we fight another war.
"Someone needs to answer those questions"
DeleteA good start would be for you to offer answers of your own and the rationale behind them.
I have never understood why, for example, the Navy should have the same standards as combat infantry. Certainly combat forces should have demanding standards, and ones not variable by age or sex. I suppose it's just too hard to actually fit the standards to what the individual's duty actually involves?
ReplyDeleteAs far as an Army-Navy comparison, the specific duty tasks may be different but, in the end, both do/could require enormous physical exertion. For example, when a ship gets hit, the firefighting, rescue of crew, damage control, etc. is exhausting beyond belief even for highly fit men. I want to make sure that the sailor next to me is physically capable of lifting my injured, unconscious body through a hatch or carrying me out of a burning compartment, lugging and placing damage control timbers, sealing leaks under high water pressure, lifting portable pumps, passing shells, firefighting for hours on end, and so on.
DeleteRegular duty tasks may differ but when combat/disaster comes, EVERYONE has to be as fit as possible.
I've recently reread a few of P. T. Deutermann's WWII Navy books. In a few of them he provides a knowledgeable, serious, detailed description of how tough Damage Control is when a ship is hit by torpedos or naval artillery fire. The efforts required by sailors to save ship & shipmates are extraordinary, and not just one task, but often hours long efforts under horrific conditions.
DeleteMy point would be that, for example, DC on a ship requires stamina and upper body strength--not running two miles. Pete Deutermann was a NWC classmate of mine, BTW.
Delete"DC on a ship requires stamina and upper body strength--not running two miles."
DeleteYou may not be understanding the purpose and benefit of cardio (running, in this case). Cardio is the foundation of ALL physical activity. Without getting too deep into cellular physiology, cardio is the optimization of oxygen transfer and it is oxygen that is the basis for all muscular/physical activity. When muscles become fatigued, you see the build up of lactic acid which occurs as a result of low oxygen levels.
ANY repetitive motion, with or without weight or resistance, involves muscles and, therefore, oxygen. Simply sitting up in bed, if done repetitively for, say, ten minutes, would leave a person panting for air.
Whether you're running a marathon or performing DC on a ship, you'll be using muscles for extended periods and that requires efficient oxygen transfer to avoid tiring out too quickly. Hence, cardio.
Running, specifically, is great for building up leg muscles and the legs are the basis for almost all lifting. Carrying portable pumps or passing shells, while they involve the arms, depend on the legs, ultimately, as all arm weight stresses and strains are passed through the spine and down to the legs.
Running is vital.
I hope this helps you understand.
Well, I always thought that seeing the military practice running was bad for civilian morale. I grok your point. Still think that for the Navt swimming is more important.
DeleteSwimming could be an excellent complementary part of overall physical training. There are many ways to achieve fitness although nothing will replace running for the efficient combination of leg work and cardio. Make it an uphill run and you've got a brutally effective workout!
Delete"Still think that for the Navt swimming is more important."
DeleteHopefully they do damage control well enough that swimming isn't necessary. :)
Lutefisk
I graduated from Airborne School at Fort Benning in 1989.
ReplyDeletePhysical fitness was stressed there.
We had a formation run each morning, and if you fell out of the run you were out of the school.
At the end of the run we lined up and did 9 pull-ups at the instructor's cadence.
These things made sense to me.
The run was to be sure that your leg strength was adequate to take the punishment of landing with a military parachute and full equipment.
The pull-ups were to ensure that we had adequate upper body strength to pull on the risers to steer the parachute.
Curiously, the females did separate PT.
They ran for the same amount of time that we did, but at a slower pace (so shorter distance).
They also didn't do the pull-ups.
Instead they did this weird modified thing where they laid on their backs and reached up to a bar and pulled themselves up with their feet still on the ground.
Didn't they also need to control the parachute during descent?
Lutefisk
Hopefully the political aspects are set aside, and we truly change things to reflect the importance of combat capability. Men and women are different, and this long standing opposition to that statement is nuts. There's no way that women can be in many of the combat roles without lowering standards. It may be unpopular, but so is losing battles and wars. On top of the physical capability issues, when women are injected into units, the typical male camaraderie and machismo ( yeah, I know...laugh... but it's a thing, and military men feed on it) goes out the window. These things are important for unit cohesion, and ultimately, combat efficiency. My thoughts on this were politically incorrect back when I served, and surely still are today. But they haven't changed. Women can perform admirable in many roles, and I have no problems with that, or saying so. But I don't believe they belong in combat roles- including warships. Being exposed to their relatively cancerous effects aboard ship is one of the big reasons why my first enlistment was also my last. And this is from someone who'd never wanted anything but a navy career since his early youth.
ReplyDelete