Should Women Have a Wider Scope of Responsibility in Combat Zones? [POLL]

I was even in the Army and for me this is a hard and loaded question to answer.  Do we want to see our brave service-women shot, hit with shrapnel, paralyzed or killed? No. But it's safe to say we also don't want to see our brave service-men shot, hit with shrapnel, paralyzed or killed. What do you think, should women be allowed a wider scope of responsibility in a combat zone?

According to MSNBC.com " Some restrictions on women serving in combat roles in the military will be relaxed, the Pentagon said on Thursday, reflecting the reality that women have served, and died, in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."

And the story goes on to read, "The Defense Department would still prohibit women from serving in infantry, armor and special operations units, whose main function is to engage in front-line combat, defense officials said. But women will be allowed to move closer to the trenches by stationing them near direct ground troops in jobs such as tank mechanic and field artillery radar. Previously, women had been billeted away from smaller combat units."

So, we obviously are not talking about putting female soldiers into an M1A1 Abrams or a Stryker, but they could definitely maintain and/or recover them in a combat zone. In my time in the military, I had the honor of working with plenty of female soldiers that were great soldiers and I worked with ones that weren't. But the same applies to males. There are some females who do a great job at their job and could be an asset closer to the action.

Presidential hopeful Rick Santorum has a narrower view and while I understand his reasoning and I don't necessarily agree. He said

“When you have men and women together in combat, I think men have emotions when you see a woman in harm’s way,’’ Santorum told TODAY’s Ann Curry Friday. “I think it’s something that’s natural that’s very much in our culture to be protective. That was my concern, and I think that’s a concern with all the military.’’