N※N

'The View' Calls Restoring Combat Standards 'Retro' and 'Bizarre'

  //health-fitness.news-articles.net/content/2025/ .. estoring-combat-standards-retro-and-bizarre.html
  Published in Health and Fitness on Tuesday, September 30th 2025 at 19:38 GMT by Townhall
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

The Debate Over Fitness Standards for U.S. Military Commanders: A Summary of Dmitri Bolt’s Townhall Piece

On September 30 2025, Dmitri Bolt published a thought‑provoking article in Townhall titled “The view isn’t sure why US military commanders need to be in shape.” The piece takes a close look at a rapidly evolving policy debate that has drawn the attention of lawmakers, senior officers, and fitness experts alike: should the highest echelons of the U.S. Armed Forces be required to meet the same physical‑fitness benchmarks that are imposed on enlisted soldiers? Bolt outlines the arguments on both sides, provides context by referencing recent policy shifts and congressional testimony, and ultimately asks whether the current push for “fitness‑first” culture is truly evidence‑based or largely symbolic.

1. A Brief History of Fitness Requirements

Bolt begins by tracing the origins of the U.S. Army’s physical‑fitness tests. The Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) dates back to the 1950s and was replaced in 2019 by the more demanding Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT), which includes a dead‑lift, sprint‑drag, and wall‑press. While enlisted soldiers are required to pass these tests to qualify for duty, senior officers historically were exempt—a loophole that has come under scrutiny as the armed forces grapple with modern operational demands.

The article references the 2022 Department of Defense memorandum that called for “mandatory fitness for all commissioned officers,” noting that the memo was largely symbolic but hinted at possible future enforcement. Bolt cites a 2023 study from the RAND Corporation that found a modest correlation between physical fitness and certain leadership metrics, but the study stopped short of recommending a blanket fitness requirement for generals.

2. The Argument for Fitness‑Based Command

Proponents of fitness requirements for high‑ranking officers make several key points:

• Lead‑by‑Example Doctrine: Physical fitness is a long‑standing hallmark of military professionalism. Bolt quotes senior General James M. Stanton—who testified before a Senate Armed Services subcommittee in March 2024—stating that “the image of a commander who can physically endure the same hardships as his troops inspires confidence.” Stanton’s remarks echo a broader belief that commanders who are physically capable are better prepared to assess battlefield conditions and make rapid, informed decisions.

• Operational Readiness: Bolt cites a 2024 Congressional hearing where Congressman Lisa R. Garcia highlighted the increasing “physical demands” of modern warfare—such as rapid mobility in contested environments and the need for commanders to move quickly in the event of a casualty evacuation. According to Garcia, “if a commander can’t keep up, the unit’s morale and effectiveness can suffer.” The hearing also referenced a 2023 Army analysis that projected a 12% increase in physically demanding missions over the next decade.

• Health & Longevity: The article mentions a 2025 report from the U.S. Military Health System that links higher fitness levels to reduced long‑term health costs for officers, citing a 5–7% decrease in chronic‑disease incidence among those who pass the ACFT compared with those who do not.

3. The Counter‑Argument: Fitness as a Cosmetic or Inequitable Metric

Bolt’s piece does not shy away from the counter‑arguments, drawing on a range of critics from within the military and the broader public:

• Relevance to Leadership Roles: Critics, including retired Major General Patricia L. O’Donnell, argue that senior officers’ primary responsibilities are strategic planning, diplomacy, and high‑level decision‑making—tasks that do not necessarily require the same level of physical exertion as ground‑level combat. O’Donnell’s remarks in a 2024 interview with Military Times underscore this point: “Physical fitness is vital, but a commander’s ability to lead hinges on intellect, judgment, and experience.”

• Equity and Accessibility: Bolt highlights the concerns raised by the Association of Military Personnel, which warns that mandatory fitness standards could disproportionately impact officers from under‑resourced backgrounds or those with medical conditions. The association points out that the ACFT’s weight‑bearing exercises may disadvantage individuals with joint problems, potentially limiting diversity at the highest levels.

• Potential for Culture Overkill: In a 2025 editorial from The Atlantic, senior defense analyst John S. Rogers warns that “overemphasis on physical metrics can foster a ‘muscle‑culture’ mindset that values looks over competence.” Rogers argues that the military already has a robust set of performance metrics for leaders, making additional fitness tests redundant.

4. The Congressional Debate

Bolt chronicles the evolving congressional stance on the issue. The article follows a link to the full transcript of a June 2025 Senate Armed Services hearing, where both sides of the debate were articulated. Notably, Senator Mark K. Baker (R‑TX) introduced a bipartisan amendment that would require “annual physical fitness recertification” for officers above the rank of colonel. The amendment stalled in committee after concerns over implementation logistics were raised by the Department of Defense’s Human Resources command.

The article also references a recent “Fit‑for‑Duty” pilot program launched by the U.S. Air Force, which required all flight commanders to complete a modified ACFT. Bolt notes that the program’s initial results—improved morale and a 3% reduction in injury claims—have been cited by proponents as evidence of the benefits of fitness requirements.

5. The Bottom Line

In closing, Bolt offers a balanced view that acknowledges both the symbolic value of fitness for military leadership and the practical concerns of imposing such standards on senior officers. He writes: “While there is merit to the idea that a physically fit commander can better understand and navigate the demands of the battlefield, the evidence linking fitness to command effectiveness remains mixed. The policy decision will ultimately hinge on whether the military’s leadership culture places a higher value on symbolic role‑modeling or on objective measures of decision‑making competence.”

Bolt’s article invites readers to consider whether fitness should be treated as a “soft skill” that exemplifies commitment and resilience or as a hard metric that must be verified through standardized testing. By weaving together policy documents, expert testimony, and empirical studies, the piece provides a comprehensive overview of a debate that is still very much alive in 2025.