Personally I don't get why people have an issue with this(ok ok I get why people can but not why they should). Sure there are a number of potential concerns with women being in combat, but should we discriminate against them because of what 'could' happen or because of what is likely to happen?
If you ban them from combat because of what 'might' happen to them, is that philosophically different than banning certain firearms because they 'might' be used improperly?
If we discriminate against something it should be because the harm is 'likely' to happen, because frankly anything 'might' happen but in the vast majority of cases it doesn't.
From a practical point of view however, little is expected to change at this point. Why? Many of the women who have tried combat infantry training have dropped out in the end. One of the primary reasons they have done so is because they found that, while they could do the same level of work in short bursts, their bodies broke down much faster and more frequently than men. It's the simple physiological differences, that will be the limiter to them taking a more active role in combat.
Will there be extraordinary women who can meet the physical challenges? Absolutely and they should be encouraged to do so, but from a practical stance I don't expect much to change from this. The greatest concern I have is that we become so focused on trying to get women into roles they may not be physically suited for that we lower standards of performance so much that we impact capabilities.
But then again, in 10-20 years our military will be composed of only special forces and robots so maybe it doesn't matter.
"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t*rd by the clean end"