He makes a few valid points regarding the performance of women in combat (sex doesnt matter, if you're good then you're good) but kinda failed to address the point that (early in the article) was where i thought he was going.
Despite people insisting that they don't mind women doing the job, at the end of the day a female combat casualty on the news is going to swing public opinion DRAMATICALLY more than a male one is, what happens (from a political perspective) when we lose someones daughter in a combat action?
You need to expect that our troops will (at some stage in the future) be engaged in front line peacekeeping or combat duties in various parts of the world, will a female death result in policy changes that wouldn't have happened if it had been a male? No matter where it happens, the first female infantry casualty is going to put a LOT of pressure on the ruling party to pull us out (even if there's a good reason to be wherever it happens to have occurred).
edit: it isn't the best example to compare segregated soldiers of a restrictive religion/culture with Australians, every aspect of their culture (military and civilian) involves men and women treating each other differently to the way we do. Might as well compare cats and dogs.