With the first two women having completed Army Ranger school, we're getting closer to the day the U.S. military will treat women just like men, including sending them to the front lines of combat.

Julie Pulley, a 2000 West Point graduate and former  captain and airborne soldier, is happy for the two female Rangers but overall worried about the complete integration of women into the military. Pulley recognizes that "overturning a long-standing tradition in a martial organization like the U.S. military will undoubtedly have unintended consequences."

Pulley is particularly worried about the prospect that the Army permit women to join its Infantry Branch, which is a current demand from feminists. She has written a terrific piece in today's Wall Street Journal, which I commend to all who struggle with this issue.

In her measured article, Pulley writes:

From a practical standpoint, I believe the impact would be negative. Many civilians, veterans and active-duty service members will disagree. Many will view me as disloyal to women in arms. I respect and understand opposing perspectives. I also appreciate the sacrifices of women before me who suffered and overcame countless barriers so that I could live big dreams, choose to attend the United States Military Academy at West Point, and serve my country without feeling professionally inhibited, marginalized or disrespected.

But questions persist. Can the general population of fighting-age American women be expected to perform equally with their male counterparts? According to a U.S. Army Soldier Systems Center study released in 2004, the average fighting load carried by an infantry rifleman operating in Afghanistan was 63 pounds before adding a rucksack. The average approach-march load in combat, which includes a light rucksack, was 96 pounds. The average emergency-approach-march load, which includes a larger rucksack, was 127 pounds.

Would the infantry have performed as well in past wars had half the billets been filled by women instead of men?

Can fighting-age American women be counted upon to fulfill their duties without causing an increased administrative burden in time of national emergency? Around the time my company received orders to deploy to Afghanistan in 2002, a number of women in my unit became pregnant. My company, stationed at Fort Bragg, N.C., attached soldiers from two other Army posts to fill the vacancies caused by the inability of these female service members to deploy.

Will women serving in the infantry be injured more frequently or more seriously? In a 2011 article, the Seattle Times estimated the Department of Veterans Affairs paid over $500 million in benefits annually for degenerative arthritis, cervical strains and other musculoskeletal injuries. Will disability payouts increase with women serving in the infantry? I believe the defense leadership must conduct an objective study of basic training and military-school injury rates by gender to more accurately predict answers to such questions.

I don’t raise these questions because I am a “hater” or a naysayer. I ask because I am a mother of both a son and a daughter. As a former service member, I wouldn’t have wanted to be forced into a job in which I was severely disadvantaged. I do not want my daughter mandated to fill a position in which she will have to put forth significantly greater effort than her peers just to survive in a time of war. I do not want my son forced into a job where he is at greater risk because those serving alongside him are disproportionately taxed physically.

My hope is that the dialogue regarding the opening of all military branches will be thoughtful and realistic, unclouded by agenda and emotion.

It is telling that the state of the argument is such that Ms. Pulley has to explain that she is not a "hater."