Here's the problem with it. It's not if women can or can't for the most part. It's an added burden to an already stressed combat leader. Now on top of worrying about training, logisitcs, missions, ect. He has to worry if PFC Jones is dating SPC Smith. Or if SGT White and SGT Black are dropping the soap for each other. Then god forbid there should be in combat with girlfriends and boyfriends, husbands and wives, boyfriends and boyfriends, girlfriends and girlfriends all fighting beside each other and someone gets killed. You've not effectively taken 2 out of action with 1 casualty. And yes, despite what rules end up in place, this will happen. Even the rules they put to "ensure" this doesn't happen will be altered by some court because it is "unfair" to them. This all creates more stress for the soldiers and the leaders, of course the politicans don't care about the guys in the field, just as long as they can rack up political points.

Then we will end up with women claiming discrimination because not enough of them are in combat arms, so they will have to lower the physical standards. Just like we've seen with affirmative action and thier wrriten tests.

This is the left's way of destroying the military.

I just don't understand the logic behind this at all. I have not served in the Armed Forces so I will withhold my comments except for this one. If you can't kick my [censored] in hand to hand combat I sure the hell do not want you fighting next to me or watching my back.

Bambi, I'm at work and unable to do the research on my question. Could you answer? Is it a current "law" passed by the US Congress that women may not serve in primary combat positions? If so, how can Leon Paneta just decide to make a change without Congressional intervention. Also,do you think that these thousands of new open positions will be used as "jobs created" to pad the O's unemployment numbers?