In a recent whirlwind of political banter, the debate about women serving in combat roles in the military has exploded into the public eye like a firework at a Fourth of July barbecue. It’s a topic that has folks on both sides of the aisle diving for cover as if they’re dodging a barrage of friendly fire. The latest political player to come under scrutiny is none other than Senator Pete Heth, who has taken some heat for his rapidly changing views on this contentious issue. Talk about going from “no women allowed” to “hey, maybe it’s okay” faster than a kid changes their mind about broccoli.

Let’s rewind to when Heth tossed out statements like they were confetti at a parade, declaring that women simply lacked the physical prowess to hang with the boys on the front lines. His reasoning? Women’s standards are consistently lower than men’s in the military – a fact he touted like a badge of honor. But this somewhat outdated belief raises eyebrows. After all, isn’t the whole point of the military to have soldiers who can carry their weight, regardless of gender? It’s not like the enemy is going to take a timeout while the troops square up on push-ups.

Fast forward to the timeline that would make any soap opera writer jealous. After years of saying women shouldn’t serve in combat, Heth performed a dazzling about-face, claiming some of America’s greatest warriors are indeed women. Cue the dramatic music; the man went from “nope” to “sure, why not” in the blink of an eye. What happened in those 32 days? Did he accidentally stumble upon a superhero movie marathon or was he just trying to score some political points before the next debate season? It’s like he found a magic mirror that showed him how quickly things could change in Washington, and boy, did he take a long look.

There’s a curious irony here too. Heth’s initial arguments rested on the foundation of “standards” and “morale.” Now, he’s pivoting like he’s auditioning for a dance show, claiming that if the physical fitness tests are rigged to accommodate women, morale suffers. Meanwhile, morale takes a hit every time he opens his mouth—it’s almost as if he’s become a one-man morale band with an offbeat rhythm. With every flip-flop, he prompts the question: what standards, exactly, are we holding ourselves to here?

And let’s address the elephant in the room. Should women be serving in combat roles? The answer is a resounding yes. Women have proven their mettle in all sorts of tough environments, from the boardroom to actual battlefields. It’s high time we ditch that old narrative that women are somehow “less” in these situations. Combat is not solely about who can do more push-ups but about strategy, teamwork, and the ability to think on one’s feet—even if they occasionally wear combat boots.

The whole debate could make for a pretty decent sitcom episode: one where the clueless politician learns that putting people in boxes isn’t just unhelpful, but downright absurd in modern society. Standards should focus on skill, capability, and teamwork, not whether someone can perform more pull-ups or what’s found in a rigid rulebook from 1950. As society moves forward, we should embrace the notion that not everyone fits into a neat little category—and that’s what makes us stronger.

So, here’s the takeaway: when it comes to combat, there’s strength not in physical power alone but in resilience, intelligence, and adaptability. Let’s hope Heth’s evolving perspective signals a shift toward embracing talent in all its forms, rather than clinging to outdated ‘standards.’ Because if there’s one thing the military ought to be on the lookout for, it’s the best candidates for the job, regardless of gender. Now that’s a standard worth rallying behind.