Having served for twenty years in the Army including a tour in Vietnam as an adviser to a South Vietnamese Armor unit, I believe I have something to add. First of all, the idea that all future wars will use high technology and with small units such as special ops is not reality. In two years the Russians will be spending a greater portion of their GDP than the US on their military. Both Russia and China are building large scale land forces that include the three main combat arms, Armor, Infantry, and Artillery. Secondly, anyone who keeps up-to-date on all things military knows that cyber warfare will take center stage in any major conflict. The Chinese already hack into our banking systems and yes, even the DOD networks. Look how easy hackers got into the past presidents' email accounts. Cyber warfare will take down Command and Control, Logistics, GPS, and will eventually be able to take control of our drones and other tools of war.

The article has some good points and there are some good comments here.... Having spent 8 years as an Army NCO (some during Desert Storm), what resonates with me is that despite all the tech we had- the harsh elements, no electricity (drained batteries, etc.) and other things that occur during war eventually made it so that the tech no longer worked (or at least worked as planned), and at the end of the day with an equally-strong enemy destroying each other's tech (including satellites) we'll all be grunting it out. No doubt where intellect is concerned men and women are equivalent, however, men on average have 40% more muscle mass than women (and "mental testosterone" that is more in line with fighting a war) and women are better suited for support roles, not to mention the dynamics of women and men in close quarters present challenges (moral included). Support roles are just (if not more) important than direct-combat roles...

Why is it alright for women to be fire fighters and police officers - both requiring strength and risk to life, yet it's dangerous for women to fight in wars on the frontlines? Not every woman wants to do this, but for those who do, why not let them?

At least the women aren't pictured pointing their weapons at each other. I think it is regrettable that we a placing women in high risk areas, and this old geezer doesn't think a moral nation would send its women into war just in the name of equality.

Those who live by the sword will die by the sword... Considering that this is supposed to be a christian forum, perhaps someone will answer the following: What else did Jesus Christ say about the use of violence? Did he say how the persecuted should react? Jesus, the apostles and the early christians for the first three centuries were all non-violent. They did not take up arms. They did not go into physical battle.We can even find historical records of Roman centurians and soldiers being executed because they refused to fight because they called themselves christian.They all saw injustice, they all heard and witnessed battle around them. Jesus and his apostles could have formed a military campaign, but they did not. Christian martyrs suffered torture and were killed rather than fight back. Violence breeds violence. God said, Vengeance is Mine, I will repay. Furious anger is not meant for the christian man or woman. Christian church leaders should have the courage to say this.

"When U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced yesterday that the military would drop its ban on women in combat..." I was hoping this day would never come. I'm not against feminism, but definitely gets filed under the category "negative fall out". When our daughters start getting drafted, some might begin to change their tune.

Thanks Kate! I too, am looking forward to women serving in every area of the military and in the highest ranks. Of course, like you say, they are already flying the choppers, driving the humvees, and getting caught in the cross-fire as they evacuate the wounded etc. Now it is time they walk with the infantry carrying their fair share of the load, wade through swamps, trek through under-growth, walk through dusty villages and avoid booby-traps, trip-wires, snipers and IEDs. I can't wait for the day when, like our male, females deal with everyday war realities like amputation of limbs, and field hospitals full of wounded-for-life female soldiers waiting to be flown home. And, of course, I am looking forward to equal amounts of body-bags flown in from international battlefields, and to the equal treatment female soldiers will receive when they are captured, confined, and 'renditions' etc. Of course, like males, females can also expect to be raped and sexually abused. I am with you, Kate!

With all due respect, Ms. Shellnutt, you don't seem to know what you are talking about. Yes, there are still "front lines" and that's not what "asymmetrical warfare" means. The fact that woman have been put in harm's way in a warzone does not mean that it's a small change to eliminate all distinctions about combat roles. Americans have no idea just how radical a shift the DOD is making. (Even the Israelis do not allow women to hold the same roles that Panetta just opened up.) If women are *allowed* to serve in combat roles then there is no reason why they can't be drafted to serve in the infantry. A lot of people are going to be in for a big surprise when they find their daughters and granddaughters soon having to register with the Selective Service.

Karen- I appreciate your comments! I think we can all agree that Clausewitzian doctrine has been relegated to the 19th century. But that doesn't mean that "troops and strategy" no longer matter. Air power, mobility, intelligence, logistics, and all those efforts bolster combined arms doctrine with amazing efficiency. Examples abound from 1939 to 2003. But, it's a mistake to think that technology will do away with the necessity of putting troops on the ground--troops who will have to walk with heavy packs and carry big guns and, (possibly), close with an enemy and kill him hand-to-hand. Examples of logistics and air power ALONE winning a war are, well, I can't think of one. I also question the assertion that "modern war" = asymmetrical war. Who made that rule? I only hope to say that ground combat entails more than Mrs. Shellnutt has described, and we just need to appreciate those complexities as we make the decision to send women into the infantry.

@ Jonathon Romaneski I would argue that the familiar combat system of "build a line, or line of people" is obsolete in the modern age; see Vietnam, Iraq I and II, and Afghanistan for how well it works. Are tanks useful? Sure! Drive a few along a road, or cross-country, and you can do a lot of damage - especially to enemy tanks. Drive a line of armor with support troops, as was done in WWII, and you will end up either not finding the enemy (in asymetrical warfare) or eating missiles from a more significant enemy (China, North Korea, etc). Trench warfare, ie traditional tactics, would have similar issues. Modern warfare is about logistics and asymetrical combat - getting ground support in place, then using air power to take down the majority of the hostile forces - much more than it is about troop numbers, it's about the ability to get the necessary troops to a place they can use to take advantage of a given weakness.