Military readiness hampered by low levels of physical fitness, not gender | READER COMMENTARY

If The Heritage Foundation’s Thomas Spoehr and U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton (“U.S. Army may be ‘equitable,’ but it’s not ready for combat,” May 19) were truly concerned about the combat readiness of the military, they would focus less on the ability of women to run two miles in 23 minutes versus 19 and more on the physical fitness of the entire country’s pool of potential recruits — male or female.

A 2018 Heritage Foundation report, co-authored by then Lt. Gen. Spoehr (”The Looming National Security Crisis: Young Americans Unable to Serve in the Military”) found that 71% of young Americans between 17 and 24 are ineligible to serve in the United States military, with most of them disqualified because of health problems and a lack of physical fitness (59%). Other reports showed that 27% of the nation’s young people are “too overweight for military service.”

Similarly, a 2018 study released by The Citadel in collaboration with the U.S. Army Public Health Center and the American Heart Association showed that “the low fitness of U.S. Army recruits from 10 Southern states poses a threat to military readiness and national security.” And speaking of “absolutely pathetic,” guess which state is among the 10 whose recruits are “significantly less fit … than recruits from other U.S. states?” It was none other than Sen. Cotton’s Arkansas.

Mr. Spoehr’s criticism of the Army’s abandonment of its gender neutral ACFT (Army Combat Fitness Test), is legitimate. But laying the blame for the lack of a combat-ready military on the backs of female soldiers not only ignores documented evidence to the contrary, it feeds into the misogynistic and paternalistic notions held by far too many of today’s leaders.

— Janice M. Davis, Baltimore

Add your voice: Respond to this piece or other Sun content by submitting your own letter.