Pete Hegseth

And so I'm surprised there hasn't been more blowback on that already in the book, because I'm straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles.

It hasn't made us more effective, hasn't made us more lethal, has made fighting more complicated.

Most of them actually are, a lot of them are pushed, I shouldn't say most, but many are pushed into a combat track because they're so highly capable.

But if they had their first choice, it probably wouldn't be that.

an 11-series job, you know, armor or infantry.

So, I mean, the Marine Corps did the study, and integrated units, meaning male, female, did drastically worse than all male units.

And Ray Mavis, who was the Secretary of the Navy in time in 2015, said, oh, fuck your study.

We're doing it.

because that's what the Obama administration wanted, and everything else changed.

So I'm not saying that was the only point, and I don't know if that'll ever change.

I mean, imagine the demagoguery that would come on in Washington, D.C., if you're actually making the case for, you know, we should scale back women in combat.

And as the disclaimer for everybody out there, and we're not really in the disclaimer business, like we've all served with women and they're great.

It's just our institutions don't have to incentivize that in places where traditionally, not traditionally, over human history, men in those positions are more capable.

Or we treat somebody differently in the moment.

Right?

I mean, maybe something like a female engagement team.

Like, I understand the role of female engagement teams.

I'm not even talking about pilots.

I'm not talking about pilots.

I'm not talking about the ability to, you know, do... I'm talking about physical...