Obviously some doing the work do have that view, but this piece is a textbook example of a media bias. They give the other side no time. It is a clear advocacy piece, and the writer clearly sought out people to provide quotes in favor of the position she sought to advance. I read a similar article last year where it interviewed a female in military police who had gunned down some insurgents. This solider said that while what she does is tough, it does not infact compare to the job of infantry soldiers, and that she doubts she could cut it in that more demanding specialty.
So I really doubt this writer would have had a hard time finding a dissenting voice had she cared to find one.
Not having served myself, I prefer to defer to the experts on this. From what I've read the nature of this war has indeed blurred the lines between combat and non-combat soldiers, and I don't doubt the stories of female soldiers performing bravely under fire. But does that mean we really want to radically alter the nature of the units that are charged with actually finding and engaging the enemy?
Agreed. The article is a conclusion in search of supporting facts.