Indeed, women in combat is going to mean more war. Not declared wars (declarations don't seem to be necessary anymore anyway), but useless interventions built around touchy-feely narratives.
Here's the deal: People have learned to shrug off dead men in uniform. This won't be the case with dead women (at least not initially). The next time they need to convince Americans that we need to send troops or drones into some country 99% of Americans have never heard of to "resolve" a conflict that 100% of Americans have never heard of, the media will spam us with images of a female soldier killed in that region.
This will convince everyone on the right and left that SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE! Moronic egalitarian zombies won't stand for the unavenged death of a SISTER IN ARMS, and moronic "conservative" militarists will bang the drum about the death of this potential life-giver, this sacred temple of Christian femininity.
And before you know it, America will once again find itself embroiled in another battle where it stands to gain absolutely nothing thanks to a touchy-feely narrative (THEY KILLED ONE OF OUR WOMEN!), and this will override the scant critical thought that remains in this increasingly IQ-less role model for how not to run a superpower.
What's wrong with this picture?
"If women ran the world, there would be no wars!"
"Yay, they're lifting the ban on women in combat!"
Something doesn't add up here.