A number of philosophy blogs (and other blogs too) have addressed the question of women in combat, in light of the new statement by the Pentagon lifting the ban against placing females in combat roles in the US military. If it is of any interest, of the 30 or so female soldiers I spoke with in the past 2 weeks, the move was met mostly with indifference with about an even number of outliers particularly pleased and annoyed by the situation.
Anyway, Moti Mizrahi raises the question here.
Talking philosophy (predictably) has a post in favor of allowing women in combat roles. (The post however is mostly made up "facts" befitting someone who thinks that all philosophy including applied ethics must be done from an armchair. I leave the discovery of those statement as an exercise to the reader.)
Personally, I think that the overriding question that should determine whether or not we have women in combat roles are utilitarian. Will the country be better or worse for it? Will it lower combat deaths? Will it increase military effectiveness, . . . ? These are empirical questions whose answer should be carefully studied.