Recruiting women

Rabbi Shalom,
I would appreciate it if you could clarify your position on the subject:
1. Assuming that we are not talking about combat roles (which are not mandatory for girls) – If there is no prohibition on conscripting women, is there no obligation to conscript:
A. From the same law that applies to boys
B. Because if there is no prohibition, the girls' statement about the inability to conscript for religious reasons is not true
2. In an era when girls in the army are open to a full range of roles in the fields of intelligence, logistics, education, training (in the field forces, the air force and the navy), medicine, and more. When units fight for religious girls and are prepared to offer prestigious and significant roles within the framework of a core of religious recruits, when diverse command roles are offered, including in the most sensitive and strategic places, to religious girls (and the girls vote with their feet, with a huge increase in the percentage of conscription) – How and on what basis can it be said that the contribution in national service is more significant? My personal (and unqualified) impression of the variety of female servicemen I encounter in the context of my work, compared to the military service of my daughter and her friends, is the opposite.
3. Why is the equality argument irrelevant? If there is no halakhic prohibition on conscription of female soldiers and the state has decided that there is a conscription obligation for women, why can't it be demanded that religious women fulfill their part? According to the same logic, the Haredim can argue that in order to achieve equality, all men in Israel should be exempted from the conscription obligation instead of requiring them to bear the burden.
Thanks in advance
Regards

Gabi Shalom

1. Why should there be an obligation to enlist? One can contribute to society in other ways (national service). The fact that the state has established military service for women does not mean that it is justified. Beyond that, it has also established that national service is also a legitimate option.
Of course, if a daughter thinks that she is prohibited from doing so and declares it, there is nothing wrong with that (even if I personally think that there is no formal halakhic prohibition). But beyond that, even a problematic issue that is not strictly halakhic (in my opinion) is significant, and in my opinion a declaration is not invalid even for a daughter who perceives military service in this way. Pacifist ideology is not a halakhic prohibition, but rather a value perception (or psychological sensitivity), and yet the army recognizes it as a reason for exemption.
I do not see any sanctity in military service. It is a necessity that should not be regretted, and I oppose turning it into a supreme value and a religious obligation. Contribution in other ways is no less significant and, in my opinion, usually more so.

2. This is my impression, which is of course subjective and not representative. It seems to me that you are greatly exaggerating the role of girls in the army today (similar to the exaggeration regarding women's progress in Torah study. There is a huge difference between the discourse and propaganda to the outside world and the real situation that everyone in this field knows, unfortunately). Maybe I'm wrong, but this is my impression.
To the best of my knowledge, there is a surplus of soldiers in the army, and the recruitment of all is currently done mainly for reasons of equality. In my opinion, a significant role in national service usually contributes much more. Of course, this depends on the girl herself (unlike in the army, where the significance does not depend so much on the soldier but on the role itself).
I will only comment that during the time I served in the army (when so many roles had not yet opened up to them) this was certainly the case, and even then the state required women to enlist without any need or value in the service of most of them. So the fact that the state decided to do so really does not impress me.
I certainly see value in obeying the law and being a citizen, but I don't see it as a sacred duty, and I don't have that much faith in the decisions that are made here. I certainly allow myself to be critical of them, so the mere fact that they made that decision doesn't impress me very much.
To the same extent, they decided to open combat roles to them, and this decision in my opinion (and in the opinion of many others) is questionable and very problematic. The army hides information regarding this problematic issue (such as medical problems that appear in female combat soldiers in extremely disturbing numbers), which shows that decisions are not always made based on substantive considerations.
As mentioned, the state also decided that national service is an option. So the argument about the state's decision seems to me to be completely irrelevant to this discussion.

3. As I explained, in my opinion it is better that girls do not enlist at all, neither religious nor otherwise, and even then there will be equality (between religious and secular. Between girls and boys is a different matter, and I do not think there should be equality in this literal sense. Unlike the American Supreme Court, I have no problem in principle with the different but equal approach). The claim to exempt all men is nothing more than formalistic naivety. After all, it is not possible to close the army. Which is not true for women, whose enlistment is often done for irrelevant reasons, and as I understand it, the army will exempt all women. Let them enlist the men who are evading in droves first.

Sometimes I feel uncomfortable being such a conservative on this issue, but with all the internal resistance I have to conservatism, if you think honestly, sometimes even the conservatives are right.