A Commander's Case for Women, Peace, and Security
First, the secretary seems to have overpromised. He's not ending the program, which is required by law, but, he explained, merely 'executive [sic] the minimum of WPS required by statute.' An anonymous administration official further walked back Hegseth's announcement in a statement to the Washington Post: ''Ending' refers to ending the Biden administration's woke WPS initiatives and returning the program to its original intent.' This shouldn't be surprising, considering the secretary of state, the secretary of homeland security, the national security advisor, and the president are all proud supporters of WPS.
Second, I commanded one of the key initiatives that informed the WPS strategy and later the WPS Act, which codified in law the government's commitment to involving women in matters of war, peace, and security, and I have serious doubts about whether the program overburdened the force, distracted from 'war-fighting,' and irritated the troops.
To support The Bulwark's mission, join our community, and get the best coverage of Trump 2.0 available anywhere, become a Bulwark+ member.
IN 2008, I WAS COMMANDING THE 1ST Armored Division in northern Iraq when we began seeing a disturbing and confounding trend: an uptick in suicide bombings carried out by Iraqi women. A series of these attacks were executed in crowded markets, polling stations, and police checkpoints—places where the U.S.-Iraqi security posture was already strained. What made this tactic so effective, and so deadly, was that in traditional Iraqi society, male soldiers and police were prohibited from touching or searching women. And there weren't any female Iraqi police officers to close that gap. Al Qaeda in Iraq knew that our lack of women was a weakness. And they exploited it.
At first, our intelligence analysts didn't fully understand the dynamics. We couldn't figure out why women were now involved in this al Qaeda network of death. It wasn't just tactical adaptation—it was social manipulation.
Throughout our fifteen-month tour, fighting the insurgency didn't just mean lobbing ordnance at bad guys. We were also engaged in a broad campaign to improve governance in northern Iraq by helping local officials develop capacity in law, health, education, and justice. To defeat an insurgency, it's not enough just to destroy the enemy; a successful counterinsurgency force must also contribute to the advancement of the society. Our efforts were seeing progress, as rule of law, education, healthcare, and even business initiatives were countering the terrorist message. But I had neglected a key part of the Iraqi society: the women.
The idea that eventually broke the problem came from a junior female soldier, who suggested something unusual: 'Sir, we should also hold a women's conference; they have a say in their future society, too.' It was, admittedly, an unconventional idea in a male-centric society. But I gave the task to all the female soldiers in our division to pull it off, and a few weeks later, we held that conference in Erbil with more than four hundred women from all of the provinces in northern Iraq—Arab and Kurdish.
Get 30 day free trial
Iraqi women—political leaders, educators, clerics, and civil society figures—gathered to talk about their role in securing their communities. My wife, Sue, opened the conference by addressing the group (through an interpreter) via a satellite video link from Germany. I was one of only two men in attendance, and it sent a clear message that my wife, not I or any other man, was opening the meeting. I was extremely proud when she said, 'We women must do more to stop the violence,' and the Iraqi women cheered.
The spark came during the lunch break. One of the women approached me quietly and said, 'We can help stop the bombings. But we need you to help get Iraqi women recruits into our police academies.' We had built and were operating multiple police academies to train Iraq's next generation of male security forces. But the idea of allowing women to enroll—especially to take on active policing roles—met deep resistance from the Iraqi chief of police and the minister of the interior in Baghdad. Eventually, both relented. We started small: 27 women were enrolled. They graduated weeks later. Within months, more than 60 female officers were operating in public spaces across Diyala, Kirkuk, and Salah ad-Din provinces. They became the key to breaking the suicide-vest network.
The breakthrough came when one of the rookie policewomen stopped a 15-year-old girl named Rania from entering a crowded market. Prevented from detonating her vest, she told interrogators she had been drugged and pushed toward a checkpoint by her own mother—a widow of a slain al Qaeda fighter. It turned out that many of the women wearing these vests were widows of slain al Qaeda fighters who had been told, after their husbands' deaths, there was nothing left for them. No future. No food. No marriage. No status. Many had been forced as teenagers into marrying Iraqi or foreign fighters in the first place and so faced a double social sanction: One for having been married to a terrorist, and another for being a young widow. 'Join your husband in the afterlife,' they were told, 'and in the process you can take as many infidels with you as you can.' We briefed Iraqi officials about Rania's testimony, emphasizing that many of these suicide bombers weren't valiant martyrs but abused and coerced victims of terrorism. Their story eventually became a major topic of discussion in Iraqi society, especially after a female radio host dubbed the policewomen 'Doves of Peace.' This wasn't just good counterterrorism—it was community transformation.
By the time 1st Armored rotated home, not only was the female suicide-vest cell almost completely destroyed, but the overall level of violence in northern Iraq was down significantly and the Iraqi security forces were able to take the lead.
Get 30 day free trial
WHILE OUR EXPERIENCE in northern Iraq antedated the WPS strategy and the later WPS Act, it is precisely the kind of success story envisioned by the bipartisan champions of the program. Across many departments and agencies of the federal government, the program has four pillars:
Participation: Ensuring women's meaningful involvement in decision-making about peace and security.
Protection: Safeguarding women and girls from violence, coercion, and exploitation.
Prevention: Addressing the root causes of conflict through inclusive and equitable approaches.
Relief and Recovery: Promoting the roles of women in stabilizing communities and rebuilding post-conflict societies.
Each of these principles was present in what we did in northern Iraq in 2008. And the result was not a 'woke distraction'—it was lives saved, violence deterred, and long-term security effectuated.
Share
With due respect to Secretary Hegseth, his definition of lethality is troublingly narrow. Yes, lethality can be found in a rifle shot or a perfectly executed combined-arms maneuver. But at the strategic level—where battles are shaped, alliances are built, and where 'warfighting' serves aims that promote American interests—lethality also depends on the ability to secure populations, disrupt enemy networks, and build coalitions of trust.
Empowering women in conflict zones is not a 'soft' strategy—it's a force multiplier. It produces better intelligence, enhances legitimacy, and reduces the grievances that feed insurgency. We did not set out to create a women's rights movement in Iraq. We were trying to stop the killing. And we succeeded, because we recognized that the path to security runs through society, not just the battlefield. Our female soldiers weren't intent on empowering women for ideological reasons, but because they knew they might be uniquely positioned to solve a problem that men could not.
That insight wasn't unique to our war. As Kathleen McInnes of the Center for Strategic and International Studies has pointed out,
In Afghanistan, for example, U.S. Female Engagement Teams helped tactical and operational level commanders better understand the human terrain of battle spaces, therefore improving kinetic and non-kinetic targeting. Simultaneously, partner forces also became aware that the intentional presence of women in kinetic fights could have a strategic impact. Kurdish women's units were fierce fighters against the Islamic State in part due to their combat effectiveness but also because of the reputational damage to Islamic State fighters being forced to fight—and lose—to women. In Ukraine, upwards of 60,000 women are serving in the military, including on the front lines, and women's networks are critical components of anti-Russian resistance networks.
That is what WPS stands for: the strategic inclusion of half the population in the fight against instability, terror, conflict and chaos. The WPS program reflects the reality that modern combat is not simply about force and lethality—it is about legitimacy, alliances, information, and the ability to create peaceful solutions that endure.
Killing this program won't make the U.S. military more lethal. But it might make it half blind.
Share
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Death toll rises in Thai-Cambodian clashes despite ceasefire call
Thailand and Cambodia clashed for a third day on Saturday, as the death toll from their bloodiest fighting in years rose to 33 and Phnom Penh called for an "immediate ceasefire". A long-running border dispute erupted into intense conflict involving jets, artillery, tanks and ground troops on Thursday, prompting the UN Security Council to hold an emergency meeting on the crisis Friday. Cambodia's defence ministry said 13 people were now confirmed killed in the fighting, including eight civilians and five soldiers, with 71 people wounded. In Thailand, the army said five soldiers were killed on Friday, taking the toll there to 20 -- 14 civilians and six military. The death toll across the two countries is now higher than the 28 killed in the last major round of fighting between 2008 and 2011. Both sides reported a clash around 5:00 am (2200 Friday GMT), with Cambodia accusing Thai forces of firing "five heavy artillery shells" into locations in Pursat province, which borders Thailand's Trat province. The fighting has forced more than 138,000 people to be evacuated from Thailand's border regions, with more than 35,000 driven from their homes in Cambodia. After the closed meeting of the Security Council in New York, Cambodia's UN ambassador Chhea Keo said his country wanted a ceasefire. "Cambodia asked for an immediate ceasefire -- unconditionally -- and we also call for the peaceful solution of the dispute," he told reporters. - Border row - Thai Foreign Ministry spokesman Nikorndej Balankura said Friday, before the UN meeting was held, that Bangkok was open to talks, possibly aided by Malaysia. "We are ready, if Cambodia would like to settle this matter via diplomatic channels, bilaterally, or even through Malaysia, we are ready to do that. But so far we have not had any response," Nikorndej told AFP. Malaysia currently holds the chair of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations regional bloc, of which Thailand and Cambodia are both members. Acting Thai Prime Minister Phumtham Wechayachai has warned that if the situation escalates, "it could develop into war." Both sides blamed each other for firing first, while Thailand accused Cambodia of targeting civilian infrastructure, including a hospital hit by shells and a petrol station hit by at least one rocket. Cambodia has accused Thai forces of using cluster munitions. At the UN, Cambodia's envoy questioned Thailand's assertion that his country, which is smaller and less militarily developed than its neighbour, had initiated the conflict. "(The Security Council) called for both parties to (show) maximum restraint and resort to a diplomatic solution. That is what we are calling for as well," said Chhea Keo. The fighting marks a dramatic escalation in a long-running dispute between the neighbours -- both popular destinations for millions of foreign tourists -- over their shared 800-kilometre (500-mile) border. Dozens of kilometres in several areas are contested and fighting broke out between 2008 and 2011, leaving at least 28 people dead and tens of thousands displaced. A UN court ruling in 2013 settled the matter for over a decade, but the current crisis erupted in May when a Cambodian soldier was killed in a new clash. burs-pdw/amj


The Hill
8 minutes ago
- The Hill
6 in 10 voters view Democrats negatively: WSJ poll
The Democratic Party is viewed negatively by 63 percent of American voters — the lowest approval rating of the party in more than 30 years of The Wall Street Journal's surveys — according to a new poll from the newspaper. The survey found that while voters disapproved of President Trump's handling of a variety of issues, they generally said they trusted Republicans more than Democrats to take care of those issues in Congress. On tariffs, for instance, voters disapproved of Trump's policies by 17 percentage points, but trusted Republican lawmakers more than Democrats on the issue by seven points. Only 8 percent of voters viewed Democrats 'very favorably' in the poll. President Trump himself had an approval rating of 46 percent. The Wall Street Journal poll follows a survey from CNN released Thursday which found that just 28 percent of voters viewed the Democrats favorably. Democrats are confronting widespread voter malaise and perceptions that the party is listless ahead of the 2026 midterms as key parts of the party's national infrastructure have been rocked by infighting. Still, they are seeking to capitalize on Trump's more unpopular policies. They hope the GOP's 'big, beautiful bill,' with tax cuts favoring the wealthy alongside significant cuts to Medicaid and other social services, could galvanize voters. A slight majority — 52 percent — of voters in Friday's Journal poll disapproved of the bill. The ongoing controversy over the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein — a flashpoint for MAGA voters that Democrats have sought to exploit — may also come into play as members of Congress head home for the August recess. The Journal's poll found that voters were highly skeptical that the Justice Department had thoroughly investigated the issue, with 65 percent of Democrats and 30 percent of Republicans saying they had 'no confidence' in the department's review. The poll of 1,500 registered voters was conducted between July 16 and July 20 with a margin of error of 2.5 percentage points. It was conducted by Democratic pollster John Anzalone and GOP strategist Tony Fabrizio.


Newsweek
37 minutes ago
- Newsweek
White House Responds After Judge Blocks Trump Birthright Citizenship Order
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The White House issued a defiant statement on Friday after a judge blocked President Donald Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship, marking the third time a court has done so since a critical Supreme Court ruling in June. Why It Matters Trump's executive action seeks to prevent children born on U.S. soil from automatically receiving citizenship if neither parent was an American citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of birth. The Supreme Court in June blocked judges from issuing nationwide injunctions against Trump's order, though it left an exception for class-action lawsuits, which multiple plaintiffs subsequently filed. President Donald Trump faces the media after arriving at Prestwick Airport in Ayrshire, Scotland, on July 25. President Donald Trump faces the media after arriving at Prestwick Airport in Ayrshire, Scotland, on July 25. Jacquelyn Martin/AP What To Know U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin ruled on Friday that the nationwide injunction he granted to more than a dozen states who sued over the order is still in effect because "no workable, narrower alternative" would give the plaintiffs relief. White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told the Associated Press that the administration expects to be "vindicated on appeal." "These courts are misinterpreting the purpose and the text of the 14th Amendment," Jackson told the news outlet. Lawyers representing the Trump administration argued in the case that Sorokin should narrow the reach of his earlier ruling granting the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction. But Sorokin pushed back, taking aim at the Trump administration for failing to explain how a narrower injunction would work in practice. "That is, they have never addressed what renders a proposal feasible or workable, how the defendant agencies might implement it without imposing material administrative or financial burdens on the plaintiffs, or how it squares with other relevant federal statutes," Sorokin wrote. "In fact, they have characterized such questions as irrelevant to the task the Court is now undertaking. The defendants' position in this regard defies both law and logic." The New Jersey federal judge also wrote that he has "no doubt the Supreme Court will ultimately settle the question" of whether Trump's order is constitutional. "But in the meantime, for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional." Sorokin's is the third court to block or uphold a block on Trump's order since last month's Supreme Court ruling that carved out an exception for the class-action challenges. Earlier this week, a U.S. appeals court ruled that Trump's executive order was unconstitutional and upheld a lower-court decision that blocked its nationwide enforcement. A federal judge in New Hampshire also blocked the order from going into effect nationwide in a ruling earlier this month. The judge in that case, Joseph LaPlante, paused his decision to give the administration a chance to appeal. But it did not do so, meaning his order went into effect last week. What People Are Saying Sorokin said in his 23-page ruling on Friday: "Despite the defendants' chosen path, the Court — aided substantially by the plaintiffs' meticulous factual and legal submissions — undertook the review required of it by [June's Supreme Court ruling] and considered anew whether its original order swept too broadly." He added: "After careful consideration of the law and the facts, the Court answers that question in the negative." New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, who led the case before Sorokin, said in a statement: "American-born babies are American, just as they have been at every other time in our Nation's history. The President cannot change that legal rule with the stroke of a pen." What Happens Next The case will almost certainly make its way back up to the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority and has handed the Trump administration more than a dozen critical victories so far this year.