Those who are promoting the assignment of women to combat units are (in my opinion); basing that decision on one lie after another.
The biggest lie is that success in combat leads to promotion. In WW II Generals Eisenhower, Bradley, Marshall, had never served in combat, not even in the "Great War" (WW I) when they were recently commissioned West Point Grads (and Military Institute Grads; whom the Army desperately needed in France). Due to serving in the rear areas in the U.S., they never were shipped to France. Yet, in WW II, they were "over" General Patton, who had served in combat in WW I, where he was wounded.
In my 30 years of Army experience, the way to "promotion and pay" is to avoid any and all combat duty, or even field duty; because the "promotions and pay" positions, normally go to those whose service was in the rear areas; as illustrated by the duties that Generals Eisenhower, Bradley and Marshall, had had.
Another lie is that combat is being shot at. No, this also is a false statement, because being shot at, or shot up, or shot down; is not "Combat". "Combat" is carrying the war to the enemy and winning the close battle.
When it comes to women in Combat, let us be a little more truthful about what Combat is all about.
There is more, a great deal more, a lifetime of experiences more; but enough for now.
Once a Rifleman for General Patton