This includes physical considerations.
This is not a stupid corporate office where people sitting in ties and suits in plush AC rooms are using their heads on a report or probably a sales target.
We are talking about a bloody war zone.
Not just infantry but spec ops.
Picture a 5'8" (I am being liberal with female dimensions which is much lesser in our country on an average) woman, equipped to the boot with battle gear along with male soldiers, rushing through a hail of bullets and artillery from the other side. Suddenly, her male comrade is shot and severely injured. She's in the middle of a dense tropical surrounding where she has only herself and her 10 team members spread out in the region. Her partner is injured and she is almost surrounded in a fight, with only one way to go: back.
What gives you the faintest inkling that she'd be able to carry a 85-90+ Kg man with 40 Kg of equipment on him that too in a semi-conscious state all while shooting through the barrage of bullets, avoiding trees, thorns etc in a dangerous terrain?
Well my experience, observations and constant interaction with the military folks and their drills states NO. It is because that is not what a woman's body is built for.
It will simply be stupid to assume that just for the sake of grandiose and the idiotic neo-liberal mentality, we put a woman's life in danger by putting her in full blown combative situations.
Women do serve in army and in very capable roles that require them to even take up a semi-combat role. But that is in a specific service commission basis.
See, it is simply practicality.
A woman's body can endure much more internal pain like childbirth, than a male counterpart. But her external endurance is limited. It is not something inferior or superior. It is simply nature.
Women are welcome in armed forces to contribute to the skill but a full blown frontline role to command and lead wars is a silly and strange move by the Army.