đŸȘ– Defense Dilemma

Battle lines blur as a bold pick sparks a defense debate.

December 06, 2024

The Flag


Good morning and Happy Friday!

This campaign has been powered by you from the start, and we’re thrilled by the progress we’ve made. But we’re not done yet, and your subscription can make all the difference.

If you’ve been enjoying this newsletter, now’s the time to step up and support it. Together, we can keep this going strong into 2025.

Pick your plan:

  • $3/month: Get access to our Sunday newsletter.

  • $7/month: Sunday edition + ad-free content.

Here’s where we stand:

  • 37 total subscription upgrades

  • 26 days to reach 1,000 subscribers

Subscribe here and let’s finish strong!

Left: What Democrats Didn't Hear From Voters, Chauncey DeVega, Salon

Right: Trump Calls Out WSJ, Redefines Media Landscape, Douglas MacKinnon, Townhall

Right: Sucker Democrats Took Biden at His 'Word', Miranda Devine, New York Post

Right: Why Jay Bhattacharya Is the Right Choice To Reform NIH, Justin Perry, The Dispatch

MILITARY

Defense Dilemma

Today’s Top Story: President-elect Donald Trump's nomination of Pete Hegseth for Secretary of Defense has sparked renewed controversy over women in combat roles, following Hegseth's recent remarks opposing their inclusion.

Reporting from the Left: Hegseth faces senators’ concerns not only about his behavior but also his views on women in combat (AP)

Reporting from the Right: Should women serve in combat? Military experts weigh in (Fox News)

LEFT-LEANING SENTIMENT

Hegseth is Wrong

The Top Argument From The Left: There are many reasons to disqualify Pete Hegseth. His opinions on women are enough., Charlotte Clymer, MSNBC: “I don’t think Hegseth truly believes that women are incapable of performing combat roles to a high standard of excellence, because it has been obvious to all service members for quite some time that there are women who meet and exceed that standard. His position has nothing to do with military readiness or unit cohesion or false concern over physical standards. The reason Hegseth is stridently opposed to women in combat is specifically that he feels threatened by women who do meet the standard of excellence. He is deeply uncomfortable with women successfully doing the same exact jobs that he has always believed go a long way in promoting the asinine ideology that men are naturally born to be leaders over women. 
 He couldn’t have been clearer that he views all women as inherently inferior, which is not only completely at odds with the overwhelming evidence but also egregiously disrespectful to every woman who has served and is currently serving in combat roles with honor and excellence. It spits on the graves of every woman who has given her life for this country in uniform, many of them buried in Arlington. That should have been the moment the country immediately rejected him as the choice to lead our nation’s military.”

Honorable Mention #1: Defense Chief Rebukes Hegseth’s Stance on Women in Combat Roles, Nick Wadhams, Bloomberg

Honorable Mention #2: Hegseth has a history of supporting controversial policies involving the military, Em Steck and Andrew Kaczyski, CNN

RIGHT-LEANING SENTIMENT

Hegseth is Right

The Top Argument From The Right: Why Pete Hegseth Is Right About Women in Combat, Victor Joecks, The Daily Signal: “It’s amazing how controversial common sense is these days. Look at the reaction to Pete Hegseth’s comments about women in combat roles. What a shocker that the woke military establishment wants women in combat. Here’s why Hegseth is right. First, it’s important to define terms. Hegseth isn’t saying women shouldn’t be in the military or even combat. 
 Hegseth is referring to certain physically demanding jobs, like infantry and special operations. 
 A handful of exceptional women likely can meet the minimum physical standards for these demanding combat roles. The military still shouldn’t allow them in. For one, if sex-neutral standards produce few qualified women, leftists will push to lower those standards. It already happened in the Army’s Ranger training. More fundamentally, men act differently when there’s a woman in the group. That’s especially true when the men are 18 to 24, full of testosterone, and the woman is attractive and physically fit. Romantic relationships inside a unit are distractions that hurt morale and cohesion. The military routinely discriminates in ways society wouldn’t tolerate in other jobs. If you are too fat, old, or slow, you can get kicked out. That’s permitted—even encouraged—because the military should prioritize its ability to kill people and break things.

Honorable Mention #2: Pete Hegseth Is Right for the DOD Mackubin, Thomas Owns, National Review

FLAG THIS

More Women in Combat Roles

According to Military.com Women are increasingly serving in combat roles across the military. Key points:

  • Army: 3,800 women serve in combat, with fewer than 10 female Green Berets, including one transgender woman. 151 women have graduated from Ranger School.

  • Marine Corps: Nearly 700 women serve in combat roles, with 112 infantry riflemen and 15 officers. The number of women in these roles has tripled for enlisted Marines and grown sixfold for officers since 2018.

Should women who meet or exceed physical standards be permitted to serve in combat roles?

Login or Subscribe to participate in polls.

26 DAYS TO GO

If we get 1,000 paying subscribers by December 31, we’ll continue this newsletter in 2025. If we don’t, we will discontinue.

We are capitalists, so we will let the market (aka, YOU) decide whether or not this newsletter should live or die.

We have two options for you to choose from:

  • $3/mo: You’ll get our Sunday newsletter too.

  • $7/mo: You’ll get our Sunday newsletter and an ad-free experience.

The clock is ticking. We have 26 days to reach 1,000 subscribers.

WATERCOOLER

Monument Done, Brain Food, Unique Chins

On This Day in 1884, in Washington, D.C., workers placed a nine-inch aluminum pyramid inscribed with "Laus Deo," meaning praise (be) to God, atop a tower of white marble, completing the construction of an impressive monument to the city’s namesake and the nation’s first president, George Washington.

26 DAYS TO GO

If we get 1,000 paying subscribers by December 31, we’ll continue this newsletter in 2025. If we don’t, we will discontinue.

We are capitalists, so we will let the market (aka, YOU) decide whether or not this newsletter should live or die.

We have two options for you to choose from:

  • $3/mo: You’ll get our Sunday newsletter too.

  • $7/mo: You’ll get our Sunday newsletter and an ad-free experience.

The clock is ticking. We have 26 days to reach 1,000 subscribers.

Reply

or to participate.