It is a fact of war that prisoners are tortured and killed. The so-called "Geneva Convention" only dates to 1949 and only applies to the few who signed it. Of course, US policy has differed from that as the practices at Guantanamo demonstrated.

A few feminist thinkers have argued that our stigmatizing rape only encourages it. The puritan and prurient are two sides of the same coin. I point out that when someone punches you in the nose, it is not a separate crime of "nasal assault" which we feel uncomfortable to discuss. An assault is an assault. That said, as an aside, the rape of young men by their own sergeants during training is not an open subject. On that note, which would you find worse: being raped once by your sergeant or being waterboarded 138 times?

It seems that every civilization has developed some rules for war that protect innocents and combatants who have surrendered. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_... That being as it may, we humans have a range of behaviors. Among some cultures from primitives in New Guinea to 19th century German youths at university, combat is highly ritualized so that no one really gets hurt -- much as male animals vie for status with displays. On the other hand, Japanese warriors of the Tokugawa Shogunate invented seppuku ("hari-kiri" we call in the West), as the final escape from capture and disgrace -- because if you were captured, you would be tortured to death slowly for amusement. Native Americans had pretty much the same view. (I do point out that some tribes just killed men in order to absorb the women and children. However, as Wikiepedia notes, our own Declaration of Independence speaks differently on that.)

When the French nobles surrendered at Agincourt, they expected to be ransomed back to their families. Instead, sitting on the ground, in their armor, without their helmets, helpless as turtles, their throats were cut. The rules of war had been violated.

Perhaps it should be acknowledged that in war, there are no rules. But we do have customs. In our house, we are fans of The West Wing series. (My conservative comrades seem to misunderstand the show.) Current events underscore two lines spoken by Admiral Fitzwallace. (1) We try to minimize collateral damage, while they seek to maximize it. (2) In the recent San Bernardino terrorist attacks, Tashfeen Malik left her six-month old daughter with relatives. Admiral Fitzwallace's line: "You are talking about the laws of nations? These people do not even recognize the laws of nature."

If you read the report, you will see that women already have been in combat. In 1902, the first nurses's corps was established. This report only recognizes an existing fact. Here in the Gulch, I linked to my review of Love My Rifle More than You by Kayla WIlliams. As a translator, she was placed in a forward infantry team. She was not the only woman translator in combat. At that time, they were not formally listed as combat troops, which had ramifications for what promotions and award they were entitled to. But the fact remains, as the statistics cited above show.

With asymmetric warfare becoming a larger and larger part of the combat equation, there is no longer a 'front line'.Either allow them to full combat status or remove them from the theater of operations entirely. Coming from a background of gender equality (Mom worked just as hard as Dad, doing the same job, and Dad cooked, cleaned house and cleaned dirty baby butts, too), I know on which side I favor. The only caveat: the women better be mentally ready to accept what happens if captured. Death isn't the worst of it.