Women U.S. soldiers have been involved in dangerous situations but have been denied various combat roles they have sought in Iraq and Afghanistan. At last, the military’s official ban on women in front-line combat jobs will be lifted in three years, a move that should open the doors of opportunity to all women in the armed forces. The exclusion made no sense when it was adopted years ago and its removal should be welcomed.

A 1994 Defense Department rule that barred women from serving in jobs with front-line battlefield units was lifted last year, opening 14,500 positions to women. The move announced Thursday by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta should open some 230,000 more positions, mainly in infantry and special operations roles. A Pentagon letter by Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, advised Panetta that the action means that women as well as men "are given the opportunity to succeed."

"Bottom line, women have seen combat," said newly elected Rep. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., a University of Hawaii graduate and former Army Black Hawk helicopter pilot who lost both of her legs fighting in Iraq in 2004 with the Army National Guard.

Hawaii’s U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, who served two tours of combat duty in the Middle East, eventually with the 29th Brigade Combat Team, agreed that women will "serve as great assets in our ground combat units."

The difference between front-line fighters and noncombat support roles has been blurred by modern warfare. Women are serving in areas of intense conflict, and danger, already: on support convoys as medics, clerks, maintenance members.

More than 865 women have been wounded and 152 have been killed in action in Iraq and Afghanistan, of about 293,000 who have been deployed there since 2001. About 16,600 women are now deployed in Afghanistan. Certainly, enemy insurgents don’t pause to parse combat versus noncombat status.

Thursday’s announcement to lift the ban on women in front-line combat jobs comes two months after the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on behalf of four service women alleging that the ban is unconstitutional. The Pentagon’s decision should satisfy the complaint as service women are free to fill the combat positions they seek, as women can in Israel and Canada.

Of course, some women — like some men — would prefer not to serve in combat roles. Many are satisfied in jobs in areas that have long accommodated women, such as base hospitals, food service, supply and administration. For others, the lifting of the ban is a major opportunity, since combat service is considered a prerequisite for promotion to military’s upper ranks.

"I think it’s fantastic. I think it’s about time," Sgt. Andrea Paige, 23, who works in administration at Schofield Barracks, told the Star-Advertiser’s William Cole. "It’s extremely historic. I think, honestly, it shows that they are starting to realize that women can be just as good in the military. I think it will give the chance to prove that women aren’t weak, as most men think they are."

May 15 is the deadline for military chiefs to send initial plans to the defense secretary, with a January 2016 deadline to make a case for any positions to remain closed to women. Special-ops units like the SEALs or Delta Force that demand elite physicality or training, for example, should not yield to any special accommodations.

By the time the lifting of the women-in-combat ban takes effect, U.S. military forces hopefully will have completed their task in Afghanistan. In that likelihood, the jobs that women have sought and will be awarded will not come with the risk that has been entailed, but they nevertheless will be American heroines.