correctly, "women in combat" was one the major arguments the TSCC was making as to why the ERA should not be passed. I wonder if the time has come to renew that battle.
The morg and other churches will make a lot of noise-maybe. It would be pointless.
I doubt this is a 'bend to social pressure' thing for the military. The 'all voluntary' military is losing some of its shine when wars are pointless, involve killing large numbers of non-combatants and never end. They realize, if they want to keep recruiting people, they have to have something 'new' to offer them.
Making a proclamation and things actually changing are two different things. The reality of the US ever drafting women into the military, much less into front line combat jobs, is a long way off...
"The 'all voluntary' military is losing some of its shine when wars are pointless, involve killing large numbers of non-combatants and never end. They realize, if they want to keep recruiting people, they have to have something 'new' to offer them."
One can't help but wonder what the subtext is here. Is the military really that desperate for recruits? If so, they wouldn't come right out and say that, so they paint it as some wondrous new equality policy and kill two birds with one stone: increase the chance of bringing in more cannon fodder while keeping those on the left (who are ordinarily critical of military enlargement) fairly mollified. The left not realizing of course (not being prone to thinking multiple steps ahead) that their pleasure over this new "equality" measure could well backfire in terms of lives destroyed.
It's also, as a side note, another step in the metamorphosis of the military into a social welfare program, helping women to move up the chain of command a bit faster and thus earning a better pension and benefits down the road, and keeping more people from having to discover what a crappy job market it really is out there in the private sector.