Many of the arguments against women in line units/direct combat roles are nonsense. Here are just a couple that don't hold up.......
1. "Having to be as big/strong as a male to have hand to hand combat with the enemy". In reality going hands on with the enemy is rare, and modern fighting systems, such as Krav Maga and training can even things out.
2."Women aren't strong enough to carry a fellow male soldier with all their combat gear on their shoulder and carry them to safety". Guess what..... When your getting shot at, the last thing you want to do is stand up with a wounded buddy on your shoulder. Its another one of the "Hollywood" stunts that rarely ever happens. More likely your dragging the person while staying low and getting them behind cover, which means your using your legs and leverage to move the person. Also, when your getting shot at, and one or more of your fellow soldiers is screaming cause they just got hit, adrenaline basically takes over and has a huge effect on ones ability.
If they can pass the physical standards, and they are made aware of the risks, then I don't see a reason for then not to serve in any combat role they want. Again, we already have women flying combat air missions and attached to line units as translators, medics, and public affairs roles. They are exposed to the same dangers as the "Grunts" next to them!
