You are confusing women political/military leaders of old with being equal in a combat role today.
I would never quarrel with the notion that a few women throughout history have been very warlike in their rule and deliciously vicious at times....but they are the exception and those who were effective were an exaggeration of men.
The list of reasons why women should not serve in comabt is so long it is essay worthy and we all know what they are.
Historically very few nations have relied on women in combat unless as a last resort. I suppose they were all stupid. This is not some new noble idea that the feminists have stumbled upon 30 years ago.
Like other misguided social engineering experiments, this one will fail with time. Mark my words.
I don't believe that most women are fitted for some forms of combat, and I have long fought against the idea of women trying to be men. I do not believe in affirmative action or PC appointments, and I HATED Clinton's military policies concerning women in all positions, regardless of ability. Women on the battlefield can do many kinds of jobs, but THEY MUST BE ABLE TO PULL THE LOAD. If they cannot do it, they should not be advanced, period. Clinton's "experiment" has already failed. But the women now in place and now taking fire deserve our support, not the put-downs and rantings that some heap upon them here.
This thread is about the brave women now serving with pride in this war, and those who are possibly now in harms' way. These women deserve our support at this time, as well as the men who fight with them. Anyone who highjacks this thread and puts down our troops who might be in harms way deserves my bile, and those who do so belong in San Fransisco on the sidewalk with the rest of the pukes.