[Joe 6-pack]

"I still say that sending women into combat is the dumbest thing anyone could do."

In principle I agree: wholeheartedly so for the combat arms. I have to differ in the combat support arms, especially MP and MI. The problem is that in areas such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Panama, and what would be likely to unfold in Korea, the battlefield is non-linear. The CS MP may be expected to perform Infantry or Cavalry-like missions, and transition rapidly into a law enforcement role. Our strategic objectives in any case are far better served when female soldiers interact with / search / detain female combatants, non-combatants and third-country nationals.

[lt.america]

The combat support/combat arms thinking has become antiquated (I think that is what you were getting at in your post, I don't want to put words in your mouth). Convoys are seeing as much, and in some cases more action than many combat arms troops (even more so when you throw in the fact that artillery is combat arms). When boots hit the deck, everyone is "combat arms", only some have a primary mission that is not necessarily close with and destroy the enemy. I think in the near future we will no longer see the warehouseman kicking the box or the admin guy pumping out orders. You will see more troops that have specialty skills, but can be used in a myriad of combat situations, which brings us back to how we will integrate women into this new environment. This will be a political nightmare and I feel sorry for the administration that deals with it.