Just this week, President Bush announced that he would not sanction the employment of women in combat roles in the US Army. That army, like most military organisations, has confused policies on women in war: you can bomb them, widow them, orphan them but you can?t let them actually fight alongside the men.

In this case, everyone has a different agenda. The Pentagon would like women to be drafted as combatants because they?re running out of male soldiers to fight the guerrilla war in Iraq. Ground troops offer different opinions. Some oppose the attempt to draft women into combatant roles on the grounds of chivalry ? it won?t do to have women actually killed alongside men, never mind that women journalists, women chopper pilots and women doctors and nurses in war zones tend to be as prone to death as any man.

Some oppose the move on the grounds of practical difficulties ? will gender conflicts be harder to handle on the battlefield, for instance. Bush opposes the move for simple reasons: he?s not about to go down as the first President in US history to sanction women combatants. He doesn?t want his largely conservative constituency upset by such iconoclasm, and nor does he want to see the TV footage when women are brought back in body bags.

The one group of people whose opinions remain unsolicited is, naturally, composed of women who might sign up as cannon fodder. The classic, early feminist stance on women in warfare can be summed up simply: women should be given the opportunity to join the military so that they can contemptuously spurn an organisation so deeply rooted in patriarchy.

The contemporary feminist stance is much more nuanced. It accepts that while killing, even when sanctioned by one?s country, is not a great career option, it should be an equal rights option.

Modern feminists will argue that physical strength can be developed through training, that some women are better adapted to the physical demands of warfare than others, that most women can handle the technological side of warfare every bit as professionally as men, and that women who wish to join the army as combatants should be allowed to do so. (This columnist would go along with them: she?s a physical weakling, but on the other hand, can manage a gun better than a sewing kit!)

But modern feminism is at the crossroads when it comes to the issue of why women should join the military. Some argue that we should not allow ourselves to be used as cannon fodder, or be inducted into an army only because it?s running out of able men. To do this would be to be used for the selfish interests of the Pentagon ? in this particular war, women would be allowed to serve in Iraq without necessarily gaining a proper foothold and proper respect in the US Army.

Some say that once women are allowed to fight in combat, a door will be opened that cannot be kicked shut. Those are the ones who will regroup to fight a battle away from the war arena, to persuade their Commander-in-Chief that women can do anything just as well as men. Even fight alongside them in an unjust war.