Posted on Jan 22, 2026
2
2
0
I think it would be interesting to know if there are actual complaints are along the lines of the competence that is being questioned - and whether or not there have been complaints from leadership or fellow SM with whom the women are serving. Also are complaints differentiated from grousing about women serving, in general, or actually about the small qualified percentage of women who are considered to be ground combat qualified?
Below is some background today from SWAN about the current issue being reviewed:
SWAN Condemns Pentagon Review of Women in Combat Arms
January 22, 2025
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Service Women’s Action Network (SWAN) strongly opposes the Department of Defense’s newly announced review of women’s service in ground combat arms roles, a move that reopens a question settled nearly a decade ago through extensive research, operational experience, and the proven service of thousands of women in uniform.
Beginning this month, the Department of Defense has directed the Army and Marine Corps to conduct a six-month assessment examining the “readiness, training, performance, casualties, and command climate” of ground combat units. Pentagon officials have framed the review as an evaluation of the “operational effectiveness” of women serving in combat roles since their full integration in 2016.
SWAN rejects the premise of this review.
“Ten years of research, government reporting, and lived experience show that women’s performance is not the limiting factor,” said Rita Graham, SWAN’s Policy Director.
SWAN was a named plaintiff in Hegar et al. v. Panetta (2015), the landmark case that helped prompt the repeal of the Direct Ground Combat Definition and Assignment Rule and led to the opening of all military occupational specialties to women “without exception” in 2016. At the time, then–Secretary of Defense Ash Carter emphasized that integration was not only an issue of equality, but a strategic imperative for an all-volunteer force.
However, SWAN’s analysis of a decade of post-integration data reveals that implementation fell far short of DoD’s own guidance.
“This assessment is unnecessary, destabilizing, and deeply disrespectful to the servicewomen like me, who have already met the standards, served honorably, and proven their effectiveness in combat arms,” said Rita Graham, SWAN’s Policy Director. “Women’s service in combat has been studied, implemented, and validated time and time again over the last decade. Re-litigating this issue risks undermining readiness, morale, and trust across the force, while continuing to burden the American taxpayers.”
As of 2022, women comprised just 5.7% of combat arms positions across the active-duty force, despite representing nearly 18 percent of active-duty personnel overall. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has repeatedly warned that the Department lacks standardized goals or performance measures to assess whether integration has been successful, while DACOWITS has cautioned against relying on anecdotal “historic firsts” instead of data-driven accountability.
“Re-reviewing women’s service without addressing these institutional failures shifts blame away from the system and onto individual servicewomen,” Graham said. “That is not a readiness assessment—it is a narrative exercise.”
“Evidence shows that mixed-gender units, when properly supported by leadership, maintain cohesion and effectiveness,” said Elisa Cardnell, President and CEO of SWAN. “What undermines readiness is not women’s presence, but the Department’s failure to enforce its own integration commitments.”
SWAN urges Congress to exercise robust oversight of the review, demand transparency regarding its methodology, and require the Department of Defense to address long-standing, documented shortcomings, including infrastructure gaps, biased validation of “gender-neutral” standards, and the absence of enforceable accountability mechanisms, before questioning women’s service yet again.
“Women have already met the standards,” Graham added. “The institution has not.”
Thank you for recognizing that an inclusive force is a more powerful force.
In service,
Service Women's Action Network
Below is some background today from SWAN about the current issue being reviewed:
SWAN Condemns Pentagon Review of Women in Combat Arms
January 22, 2025
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Service Women’s Action Network (SWAN) strongly opposes the Department of Defense’s newly announced review of women’s service in ground combat arms roles, a move that reopens a question settled nearly a decade ago through extensive research, operational experience, and the proven service of thousands of women in uniform.
Beginning this month, the Department of Defense has directed the Army and Marine Corps to conduct a six-month assessment examining the “readiness, training, performance, casualties, and command climate” of ground combat units. Pentagon officials have framed the review as an evaluation of the “operational effectiveness” of women serving in combat roles since their full integration in 2016.
SWAN rejects the premise of this review.
“Ten years of research, government reporting, and lived experience show that women’s performance is not the limiting factor,” said Rita Graham, SWAN’s Policy Director.
SWAN was a named plaintiff in Hegar et al. v. Panetta (2015), the landmark case that helped prompt the repeal of the Direct Ground Combat Definition and Assignment Rule and led to the opening of all military occupational specialties to women “without exception” in 2016. At the time, then–Secretary of Defense Ash Carter emphasized that integration was not only an issue of equality, but a strategic imperative for an all-volunteer force.
However, SWAN’s analysis of a decade of post-integration data reveals that implementation fell far short of DoD’s own guidance.
“This assessment is unnecessary, destabilizing, and deeply disrespectful to the servicewomen like me, who have already met the standards, served honorably, and proven their effectiveness in combat arms,” said Rita Graham, SWAN’s Policy Director. “Women’s service in combat has been studied, implemented, and validated time and time again over the last decade. Re-litigating this issue risks undermining readiness, morale, and trust across the force, while continuing to burden the American taxpayers.”
As of 2022, women comprised just 5.7% of combat arms positions across the active-duty force, despite representing nearly 18 percent of active-duty personnel overall. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has repeatedly warned that the Department lacks standardized goals or performance measures to assess whether integration has been successful, while DACOWITS has cautioned against relying on anecdotal “historic firsts” instead of data-driven accountability.
“Re-reviewing women’s service without addressing these institutional failures shifts blame away from the system and onto individual servicewomen,” Graham said. “That is not a readiness assessment—it is a narrative exercise.”
“Evidence shows that mixed-gender units, when properly supported by leadership, maintain cohesion and effectiveness,” said Elisa Cardnell, President and CEO of SWAN. “What undermines readiness is not women’s presence, but the Department’s failure to enforce its own integration commitments.”
SWAN urges Congress to exercise robust oversight of the review, demand transparency regarding its methodology, and require the Department of Defense to address long-standing, documented shortcomings, including infrastructure gaps, biased validation of “gender-neutral” standards, and the absence of enforceable accountability mechanisms, before questioning women’s service yet again.
“Women have already met the standards,” Graham added. “The institution has not.”
Thank you for recognizing that an inclusive force is a more powerful force.
In service,
Service Women's Action Network
Combat Arms
Combat
Women in the Military
Posted 10 h ago
Responses: 4
1
1
0
I don't know about the Politics and Gender issues ...but I would remind folks of the job Women Snipers did in WW II, and the toll they took in Kosovo ...maybe they can't carry a seventy pound ruck, but they sure as heck could shoot.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Unless there are a significant number of substantiated complaints about ill-prepared individuals arriving at their units, I believe it's unjustified. If there are concerns about specific individuals being unprepared, then that specific individual should be assessed for additional training needs or possible reclassification and appropriate action taken. If there are a significant number of substantiated complaints, then the review should be directed at the curriculum, units, and staff responsible for training. It is only after this that the DOD should even consider conducting a review of the effectiveness of women in combat roles.
I think this is nothing more than the age-old bias against women serving in combat.
I think this is nothing more than the age-old bias against women serving in combat.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
I don't care about your plumbing, I care whether or not you can perform. Fact of the matter is, most men aren't fit to serve in combat arms. Rhonda Rousey probably is. If you can't manually rotate a tank turret to mate hatches, drag the 200lb driver into the turret, and lift him high enough for someone reaching through the roof hatch to take over and lift him out of the tank, you don't belong on a tank crew.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google