Maura J. Casey / The New York Times

Published: November 15, 2006

NEW YORK: One of my most prized possessions is a set of World War II dog tags. They are inscribed with my mother's name and serial number: Jane I. Murray, A-218847.

She enlisted in the U.S. Women's Army Corps at 21, determined to get as near to the front as possible. She got no closer to combat than Fort Riley, Kansas. Her army years became her great adventure before returning to marry and have six children in seven years, a daunting task for which her warrior's ethos probably came in handy.

My mother's service gave her a lifelong belief in women's abilities. She horrified my friends during the Vietnam War when she argued that women should have been included in the draft, since they had an equal obligation to serve. The courage and competence of women currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan would have come as no surprise to her.

Yet, despite what women in uniform have accomplished, there are critics who want to curtail their military roles. Despite Pentagon policy that keeps women from entering combat units like infantry, armor or field artillery, some conservatives profess horror that women are members of any combat support units in harm's way.

Because of this, Representative Duncan Hunter, Republican of California, who is the outgoing chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, tried to amend the 2006 defense authorization bill to restrict the role of women in the army. It would have barred women from nearly 22,000 jobs. The measure was withdrawn once it became clear it wouldn't pass.

But reality has overrun critics' arguments. Between Iraq and Afghanistan, 68 women have been killed in action, and 436 have been wounded, according to the Pentagon's Web site. In the midst of what is truly a 360-degree front, some still insist that women should not be in the line of fire before the country has an "open debate" on the impact of women on morale, readiness and military cohesion in time of war.

In truth, that debate has never ended, no matter how well women have served, and has largely been a ludicrous waste of time and millions of dollars. In the last 30 years, two federal commissions examined the impact of women in the military.

The army alone has conducted at least a dozen major studies on how women should be utilized. The studies found that, properly armed and trained, women enhance unit readiness and cohesion, said Brigadier General Pat Foote, who is retired. "Women have been pulled through more knotholes with people questioning their abilities," she said. "Women can do anything they are trained for."

The questions prove equally exasperating to women like Colonel Patricia Jernigan, retired, who is a board member for the U.S. Army Women's Foundation. "An airplane doesn't care who is flying it," she said. "A rifle doesn't care who is firing it. Judge women on performance."

Given the ease of modern communication, from cellphones to e-mail, if women were not measuring up in Iraq, that would have become very clear by now. Last year, the Pentagon quietly approved creation of the Combat Action Badge, awarded to army combat support soldiers who come under fire and engage the enemy. Sergeant April Pashley of New Jersey was among the first five recipients.

My mother never fought. But every day for the 30-plus years she lived after the war, she was proud she had enlisted. And despite the passage of time, there remains a fundamental bond between the experience of army women today and that of my mother, so very long ago: All she wanted was to be a good soldier.

Maura J. Casey is a member of the New York Times editorial board.