so then by your logic we should diminish the accomplishments of a hero who served his country in combat because in the past women were not allowed in combat? personally I think in todays world that women are allowed in combat as I hear of women in the armed forces becoming casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. if they are casualties, then they are in combat.
No, I think that being a hero from the military is a great thing. It's also a rare thing and so far, as it's mostly a man's military, to have that criteria as desirable for a president immediately limits those who have the potential to be a good president and excludes a great many others who don't even have the opportunity to try to become a hero.
If you're in combat that makes you a combatant, but one could easily argue that the reason these women are casualties is that they weren't
supposed to be nor
trained to be combatants and thus got themselves and perhaps others injured/killed.
OK let's cut to the chase. I read the first few paragraphs of the article where it described women's roles in combat and immediately posted the article. It answered my and
Shasta's question about women in combat. Then later I went back to read the entire article. That it turned out to be a critique of McCain was purely accidental.
If we want heroes as presidents, why does it particularly have to be
military heroes? Why not firefighter heroes? Police heroes? 9/11 or other civilian heroes?