Did we read the same article?
I don't see that at all. I was with you in your reply until that last comment. The author is talking to people who think women, as a whole, can meet the physical requirements to be line infantry. I don't see the author agreeing with that idea at all. She clearly states that men and women are strong in different ways, but that it is male strength (in this case, upper body strength) that is required to fight and win our nation's wars, according to those who fight and win them.
I don't see a single thing in the article that implies that the author thinks we should ignore that for some greater good.
You are correct.
I overstated her point and attributed to her what I see from many posters on FR (and from some on this thread, which I know from previous discussions) which I should not have done.
I do maintain that if this had been a serious effort by an author with some real principle, the article would have had a title quite different from the one that it had.
I will grant that the author does not always have the final say in the composition of the title, but this title is the epitome of the trope trotted out by feminists of all stripes, including some on FR who claim to be conservative.