Yep..but the Molly Yards of the PC world are going to go after this without any regard to the payments that will be going out to this new group of disabled vets..
Oddly enough, however, there are some, but not all, service women who are all for this change.
There are two countries in the world with extensive experience with women in combat roles: 1) Israel in the War for Independence (1948-1949) and Russia during the Great Patriotic War (1941-1945). Combat training to females is still given but neither country puts its female fighters in the combat arms. Why?
1. Disproportionate casualties as women try to “prove” themselves and men try to protect them.
2. Damaging effects on morale as the grim attrition of war counts up the butcher’s bill. Both men and women are hideously affected.
3. Physical strength and stamina over high stress actions on the battlefield. Like it or not, men are NOT equal in physical strength or abilities; it's called biology! You can blather all you want about male-female “equality”, but you cannot trump biology.
4. All female or mixed male-female units have more problems with fraternization, favoritism, petty jealousies, and in-fighting than comparable all male units.
There are a lot of female officers (and politicians) who are pushing for more women in front-line combat roles. Why? The military calls it “getting your ticket punched.” A combat command in your service record is a fast track ticket to promotion and stars on your collar. The fact that war and combat are equal opportunity killers that do not respect rank or gender doesn't seem to have affected these “upwardly mobile” careerists. One thing you don't see is herds of enlisted females beating down the doors for assignment to front-line combat units.