By alienating women, America's military is undermining itself

Globe and Mail

12 hours ago

Mellissa Fung is a journalist and the author of Between Good and Evil: The Stolen Girls of Boko Haram.
In late April, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth 'proudly' announced on X that he had ended the U.S. military's Women, Peace and Security (WPS) framework, which aims to leverage women's meaningful participation in all aspects of conflict, whether that's in the theatre of war or at the negotiating table for peacemaking and reconstruction. 'WPS is yet another woke divisive/social justice/Biden initiative that overburdens our commanders and troops – distracting from our core task: WAR-FIGHTING,' he declared.
But he got it all wrong. Not just about the president who signed it into law – that was his current boss Donald Trump in 2017, who further expanded it in 2019 – but because dismissing WPS as mere 'wokeness' overlooks the program's profound significance both on and off the battlefield.
'[Hegseth's view] is a narrow interpretation of military effectiveness, which is lethality,' says Stéfanie von Hlatky, the Canada Research Chair in Gender, Security and the Armed Forces at Queen's University. 'It's surprising for [someone] who's had experience in Iraq, to not understand … that this was a whole-of-society fight, and that you need to leverage everything.'
The WPS agenda, which was initiated by United Nations Resolution 1325 in 2000, recognizes that women and children are almost always disproportionately affected by conflict, through sexual and gender-based violence and disruption to their lives. And it's based on an inalienable truth: when women are at the table, peace lasts longer and communities recover faster.
'There is a plethora of data and evidence of every kind that shows how women in peace and security operations contribute to operational effectiveness, contribute to making us stronger in terms of security,' Melanne Verveer tells me. She was the first U.S. ambassador-at-large for global women's issues, a job created under Barack Obama, and she now heads the Institute for Women, Peace and Security at Georgetown University – and I can hear the frustration in her voice over the phone from Washington. 'It's undermining what we know that we need. … What happens when you cut off half of your talent, half of your resources, and half your experience from participating in military operations? You undermine those operations. You're making yourself less effective.'
Women bring an invaluable soft power to war, says Barbara Faulkenberry, who knows that well from her time as a major-general and vice-commander of the U.S. 18th Air Force. She's seen firsthand how important it is to ensure 'a place at the table from the women's point of view, and to incorporate that at all levels, whether it's the tactical level or [the community level],' she tells me from her home in Colorado. 'It's important to see from the other 50-per-cent's perspective.'
In Myanmar, women are leading the fight for justice and democracy
She recalls having to negotiate with other commanders during the U.S.'s surge in Afghanistan under Mr. Obama in 2009. 'I used my feminine leadership attributes when I went to the commander of whichever base. And I said, 'I'm sincerely sorry for the challenges that this is providing, but let's figure out together how we can make this work.' '
The despair in her voice is particularly evident when she talks about how the Trump administration is removing women from top posts across the armed forces. 'You and I have been to places where the potential of the nation is just capped because they don't allow women to contribute. They take 50 per cent of their brain power, and they leave it in the home. And a nation cannot be good with this kind of philosophy.'
Nowhere do we see more devastating results when we do not engage women in postconflict negotiations than in Afghanistan, she says, where half the population now lives under what most experts agree is gender apartheid. It is sad to see America now finding itself engaging in social discrimination by gender.
But even as they lament the fact that the U.S. has abdicated its leadership role on WPS, both Ms. Faulkenberry and Ms. Verveer are looking to Canada and other countries to fill the vacuum.
Ms. Verveer points to the Elsie Initiative, which aimed to increase women's meaningful participation in peacekeeping operations, and praises the work Jacqueline O'Neill did as Canada's ambassador for women, peace and security. 'The training piece is really important,' she says. 'So much of WPS work internationally was in partnership, the kind of partnerships that Canada was making with other governments, whether it was in the Global South or whether it was north, those were important strategic efforts.'
Canada's current action plan on WPS, including the Elsie Initiative, has been renewed through 2027. Ms. von Hlatky, the academic at Queen's University, is hoping the new Liberal government will carve out space to advance the agenda in spite of the current focus on the trade war with the United States. 'Canada's learned a lot from the past, having an active national action plan since 2011. I think that as these visions get renewed, they grow more and more ambitious in terms of what they can accomplish, building on the successes of the past and the lessons learned.'
To that end, she and the others hope the Carney government will name a successor to Ms. O'Neill, whose term as the first ambassador for WPS just ended. It's up to the rest of us, says Ms. von Hlatky, to keep the momentum going now that U.S. is abandoning what's been a smart and successful framework for peace and security both on and off the battlefield. After all, Mr. Hegseth's ignorant post is still up on X, suggesting the Trump administration is foolhardily committed to making America's military small again – while the rest of us understand that having women at the table increases the likelihood of enduring peace.