Veterans Share Why the Military Is Stronger When Women Can Serve in Ground Combat Roles

When former Army captain Rita Graham was in high school, she remembers her older brother joining the Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC). She thought: “If my older brother can do it, why can’t I?” So she joined herself and quickly fell in love with the structure, community, and opportunity to serve her country. Rita went on to become one of the first women to integrate into a ground combat unit after the Department of Defense (DOD) opened those jobs to women in 2016, building a career she calls “one of the greatest privileges of my life.”

For decades, DOD barred servicewomen from competing for or being assigned to direct ground combat occupations and units, including infantry, armor, artillery, combat engineering, and Special Forces. That meant more than 200,000 positions in our armed forces were off limits to half the population.This discriminatory policy was at odds with the military’s commitment to meritocracy, and limited women’s ability to advance in their careers. After the ACLU sued the Department of Defense in 2012, the ban was lifted, within a few years allowing women — like Rita Graham — to earn a place alongside male servicemembers in every ground combat occupation and assignment.

Thousands of women are now serving in formerly-closed roles, meeting the same gender-neutral occupational standards as their male counterparts and performing at the highest levels. Yet, that progress is at risk because Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has questioned women’s ability to serve in combat arms and is threatening to turn back the clock.

The ACLU recently endorsed the WARRIOR Act which was introduced in the House and Senate. The bill safeguards women’s integration into combat roles and prevents any future reinstatement of the ground combat ban. It also strengthens congressional oversight to ensure that standards aren’t politicized. And it reaffirms and modernizes what the law currently requires: gender-neutral occupational performance standards. In addition to the WARRIOR Act, the House and Senate are working on the National Defense Authorization Act, the annual bill that sets policy for the Department of Defense. It’s not yet clear if the final version of that legislation will include strong language that allows military women to continue serving in ground combat.

Veterans Joe Plenzler and Rita Graham shared with us their thoughts about what these ground combat roles demand, what women have contributed, and what the military stands to lose if qualified servicewomen are pushed out of positions they have earned.

When people question whether women should serve in ground combat roles, my first question is: What are they afraid of? To me, this is about good old American fairness. We are not comparing the average man to the average woman. We are talking about capable, athletic, patriotic, and driven people who want to serve their country. Every person who can meet the standards required for the jobs deserve the opportunity to compete.

It was shocking to me to join the infantry and encounter men who could only see women as mothers, sisters, girlfriends, or teachers, but not as peers, leaders, or competitors. Women have served with distinction throughout our history, including in Iraq and Afghanistan, and excluding them now would disregard their service while stripping the military of access to half the country’s talent. At a time when the military already struggles to fill its ranks, that would weaken readiness and put our national security at risk.

A lot of this debate comes from people confusing general physical fitness tests with military occupational standards. A fitness test measures overall strength, endurance, and agility, often relative to age. An occupational standard asks whether someone can perform the physical and mental tasks required for a specific job: carrying heavy equipment over long distances, shooting accurately, navigating difficult terrain, calling for air support under pressure, and making decisions that protect the unit. Those requirements should be the same for every person doing that job.

My wife, Kate Germano, saw the importance of this distinction when she commanded the Marine Corps’ then-all-female recruit battalion at the Marine Corps’ boot camp at Parris Island, South Carolina. She found that women were failing rifle qualification at much higher rates than men. The problem was not their ability, but rather the military’s lack of investment: women were held to lower expectations, given less effective instruction, and treated as though they could not succeed. Once she changed these environmental and cultural conditions and women were held to the same expectations, and received the same training and investment as male recruits, their scores rose dramatically, and women began shooting as well as or better than the men. The standards were not lowered; women were finally given a fair opportunity to meet them.

Women have since passed Marine Corps infantry courses and become infantry officers. There may not be as many women as men who desire to serve in infantry, tanks, or artillery jobs, and that’s fine. But for those that do, as long as they meet the standards, they deserve the opportunity to serve.

I originally planned to become a social worker in the Army, but the year I commissioned, those positions weren’t available. At the same time, ground combat jobs had just opened to women, and I decided I wanted a challenge. I was commissioned as a field artillery officer and, in 2017, became one of the first women to integrate into a ground combat unit. I spent four years in Germany embedded with infantry and armor units, focused on Russian deterrence, training Ukrainian soldiers, and working alongside our NATO allies. Throughout my career, I lived, trained, deployed, and served alongside my male counterparts, and it remains one of the greatest privileges of my life.

When people question whether women belong in ground combat, I always point to the evidence. Women have served in every American conflict since the Revolutionary War, and we’ve now spent a decade proving ourselves in ground combat roles through our performance. I rucked alongside my male counterparts, passed the same physical fitness tests, completed the same training, and deployed under the same conditions. As a field artillery officer, I had to master the same weapon systems, tactics, and technical skills, complete the same demanding physical requirements, and prove I could lead soldiers under pressure.

Once you’re in the unit, the standards aren’t theoretical anymore; they’re life or death. The only question that matters is whether you can do the job and keep your soldiers alive. That’s why this conversation shouldn’t be about gender. It should be about whether someone can meet the actual requirements of the job.

Excluding qualified women from ground combat would make our military weaker, not stronger. Women have helped the Army meet recruiting goals and helped the Marine Corps improve retention. Beyond the numbers, women bring valuable operational experience, different perspectives, and specialized capabilities that have strengthened missions from Iraq and Afghanistan to today’s evolving security challenges. We’ve seen women graduate at the top of their classes, earn leadership positions, and excel in some of the military’s most demanding specialties.

If we push qualified women out of ground combat roles, we become less lethal, less ready, and less prepared to respond when our nation calls. We’ve already proven what we’re capable of. Now the focus should be on ensuring every qualified servicemember has the opportunity to earn their place and serve.