I usually agree with Schlafly, but not on this one. I for one am getting pretty tired to the whole "woman on a pedestal" thing. That she tries to make the case that it's worse for a mother to be killed in combat than a father just nauseates me.
Women do need to be in combat positions if they are expected to advance. No forward-deployed combat unit, male or female, is going to want to be led by some duffus who's spent 20 years shuffling papers from one side of the Personnel office to the other. The purpose of senior military officers is to lead the troops in combat, and unless you have a first-hand knowledge of what the troops are, or are not, capable of you have no business being in command.
The only thing that bothers me about Johnson and Lynch were the bullet wounds to their ankles. If you watched the video of the attack site, you can see the truck that they were in. I can only see one way that these women would be getting shot in the ankles... it was because they were standing behind the truck and were struck by bullets passing underneath. And if you look at that truck, and factor in the height of these two women, it's obvious they weren't standing behind it and shooting over the hood or the truck's rear.
My guess would be that when the shooting started, the men pushed the gals behind the truck to protect them. That took at least two guns out of the equation, which wouldn't have happened if there were only men. That's the real danger of having women in combat... men will always be protective of them, which places the men in increased danger of injury.