This has to be the dumbest question ever asked. Why shouldn't they be on the front lines?

Women will never be considered as equals until they are allowed to do the same jobs that men do, regardless of the risks. Other countries allow women to be in combat roles. I know that for a fact from my tour in Viet Nam. The NVA women were just as deadly as the men.

It's an all-volunteer force, so why not?

If we ever go back to a draft, this will become more of a controversial issue.

Remember the Equal Rights Amendment that was brought up in the 1970's and failed to get enough votes to pass? Remember when one Congressman said that women should be drafted into the military the same as men? Remember how all the feminists started screaming hoi that was unfair to women, all they wanted was to be treated as equals, paid as much as men were being paid. But, NO, not to be forced to serve their country and certainly not in front line combat. Frankly, I love this idea as long overdue.

I say yes with a caveat: women should be held to the same standards as their male peers. Women should not be held to a lower standard if they expect be treated equally.

Many military and public sector jobs allow women to lift less and do less. This is unacceptable and actually damages the ability for women to be treated equally (why would a frontline soldier want to work next to someone who was held to a lower standard and isn't expected to carry as much weight or run as fast?).

It may mean fewer women make it to the front lines. But not every man is suited for the task either.

I was on active duty for 32 years and retired as a Colonel. The Air Force has had women on the front line for years - They are pilots of fighters and bombers, they are maintenance enlisted and officers at the front line airfields. They have provided great service and have been a credit to themselves and the United States Air Force. And for the same job, Lindsay, they have the same qualifications. I salute their continued performance!

Sammy, your memory of the 70's seems to be a little murky. I was a feminist then (still am) and never screamed any of the nonsense you're spouting. (Neither did my friends.) At the time, I was applying to the City of Charleston Police Department and full expected to be treated the same as a man. In fact, when I was presented with preferential treatment, I demanded equal treatment for equal pay and received it. There is no reason a woman would be unsuitable for combat if trained properly, just as we train the men. This separation is archaic and I'm thrilled to see it abolished.

Feminist and proud here too, Mary! I'd love to hear more about your experience with CPD.

Richard, I agree with the USAF way of handling things (they do a lot of things right!). What I'm referring to is the Army (and others) expecting women to only do 40-some pushups to her male peer's 70-some pushups. It creates resentment and could be dangerous on the battlefield when on the frontlines.

Like you, I'm proud of our women in uniform and applaud their service. I just want them to be held to the same standard when they are on the frontlines for everyone's safety.

I say: Why not?

If women want to go get blown up by an IED in some desert on the other side of the world in an unconstitutional war, be my guest.

Why not? Equal rights for all.

If the soldiers in front line units are for it, then it’s a welcome change and long overdue.

This may be a first on the internet, a political discussion thread where everyone actually agrees with each other. Of course now that I've pointed that out, someone will invariably come in with a contrary opinion just to ruin it.

This is a case of policy catching up with reality. Women have been performing front line duty for a long time, on the ground and in the air. It's about time they got official recognition for it.

re: policy catching up with reality.

agree but sad some/many are denied equality/recognition waiting on policy to catch up with reality...

as or more unfortunate are society's attitudes (of a minority) that defy reality...which have and continue to cause untold frustration/suffering.

that some pander to and profit on the status quo attitudes is criminal...

hopefully policy/attitudes will not be delayed in other areas...ie, reality will not be denied...

so many changes in positions then and now...eg, slavery in the days when the constitution was written...women not allowed to vote...

so many on the wrong side of history then and now...

@Tom Utley -
Or people who insist on meeting them with nasty insulting comments that only serve to fan the negative emotionality of the situation. When did snotty juvenile snipes replace honest, calm discourse as a way of discussing a topic? It serves no proactive purpose and only ramps up the reactive atmosphere. We can't move forward until we grow up.

I'm not coming in to be contrary on purpose, even if that is on occasion my M.O. but I would point out that there are real issues that will happen out in the field. Mixed gender environments mean that sooner rather than later someone will fall in love with a team member and it DOES affect unit cohesion.

When I served I was deployed on units that were all male, male except for a relative few officers, and mixed crew. The mixed crew unit was by far the least effective, least efficient and not in-consequently the most pregnant and the most fractured due to jealousy. Personal experience tells me that there will be challenges.

With that said, I applaud the military for continuing to progress and know that they are prepared to meet these challenges. They're maddeningly slow to some, maddeningly progressive to others, and excessively controlled by politics currently but at the end of the day I think their progressive conservatism is probably the most effective way to implement these inevitable changes.

/Patton'd it

Sorry, I don't agree! That's a command problem. When I met my husband, he was one of my sergeants. We dated and married and at work, he was always my sergeant. This was long enough ago that they did not have any sort of policy relative to anything on this topic and my husband and I knew that we were what would establish policy. They allowed us to stay in the same squad because of the professionalism that we maintained at work. There was nothing in the rules to prohibit them from re-assigning one of us if we failed so we made sure we didn't fail. To paraphrase an old military saying, "if the military wanted you to have a spouse, they would issue you a spouse." Basically, on duty, a relationship of any sort should not be tolerated. It has no purpose in the situation and the partied involved should understand this. Otherwise, there's always transfer.