I actually agree with you totally about reduced standards can lead to reduced effectiveness in a combat unit. However, in my opinion, I just think with training and proper physical conditioning, there are plenty of women that can handle "combat" roles.
Also, there are plenty of women currently in harm's way and they are engaging the enemy and/or getting killed or injured in attacks along with their fellow male soldiers, because the "frontlines" are all over the place at times.
Here is an interesting article on this subject:
Roles in Question for Females in Warfare - ABC News
"...But right now there are 10,000 women serving in Iraq, more than 4,000 in Aghanistan. They have been fighting and dying next to their male comrades since the wars began.
"We're here, and we're right up with the guys," says Specialist Ashley Pullen, who was awarded a Bronze Star for valor in 2005 for her heroic action in Iraq where she served with a military police unit.
Technically they're restricted from certain combat roles. The Department of Defense prohibits women from serving in assignments "whose primary mission is to engage in direct combat on the ground."
Nevertheless, women serving in support positions on and off the frontlines, where war is waged on street corners and in markets, are often at equal risk. There have been 103 women who have been killed in Iraq and 15 others in Afghanistan.
What women can or cannot do in combat is not always clear in today's wars, and many say that the Department of Defense and Congress should reevaluate women's roles in modern warfare.
As female aviators, military police officers, and civil affairs officers, about 80 percent of the positions in the Department of Defense and 70 percent in the Army are available to women, according to a RAND study. Women make up about 11 percent of the forces deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan..."