There's no question the policy change will occur. The bigger question is whether the armed forces can expand the pool of officer candidates and develop more leaders -- including more women and minorities. As long as officers come from a narrow subset of qualified people, the military will be less prepared to accomplish its missions.
In a review requested by Congress and released last week, a military commission on leadership recommended that women be permitted to serve in combat roles. The blanket exclusion of all women from combat, regardless of their qualifications, has proven impossible to enforce in war zones with no clear front lines. The rule merely serves to complicate missions and undermine unit effectiveness, the group concluded.
That opinion stole the spotlight, which is unfortunate: The recommendation to let women serve in combat was one of more than a dozen recommendations to diversify the officer ranks -- not as a matter of political correctness, but of military readiness.
"A military stretched thin by a lack of new members and aspiring leaders," the report says, "can pose a serious threat to national security."
Despite the growing diversity of enlisted service members, the majority of higher-ranking officers tend to be white and male. This is partly a reflection of the culture that existed when those officers joined the military as young men. However, it's also a result of habits and customs that persist today.
For example, the policy excluding women from combat can be a career killer, not just a protective measure. It is difficult in today's Army to advance as an officer without direct experience in combat. When women are sidelined, they have fewer opportunities to command -- and fewer occasions for promotions and pay raises.
Service members in this position, both male and female, are far more likely to leave the military than are those with clear opportunities for advancement.
Also, the traditional routes for officers tend to favor certain backgrounds over others, the commission found. If the military wanted to get more serious about recruiting and developing more Latino and African American officer candidates, it would expand its efforts at two-year community colleges, the chosen path of a disproportionate number of minority students. It would develop more ROTC programs in areas with higher minority populations.
It also would spend more time mentoring top women and minority recruits at the beginning of their careers, to help those who may not think of themselves as "officer material" to choose career fields that keep their leadership options open.
None of these actions would require a lowering of standards, the commission said repeatedly, in italics. Combat soldiers would still need to meet high standards for strength and resilience. Officers would still be expected to earn bachelor's degrees and exceed expectations for character and leadership. The main difference would be expanding the pool of eligible leaders.
Serving in the military takes special skill. Fully 75 percent of young Americans are ineligible because they can't meet the standards for fitness, education, citizenship or good conduct, according to the Pentagon. The ranks of those equipped to lead a military operation, whether a classic firefight or a humanitarian mission, are even smaller. The military can find enough officers only by acknowledging the country's changing demographics, adapting to different college and career paths, and helping more people develop into leaders.
Letting women officially serve in combat is just one step.