The big metal bell rings three times. Another cadet grows discouraged. Another one gives up on his dream of becoming a fighter in the U.S. Navy SEALS for the sake of a hot shower and some rest. Those who are left face an extra-strong helping of pain, but the commanders explain that the pain is actually a friend. Lt. Jordan O'Neil, the only woman in the exhausting course -- who was placed there as an experiment -- has a lot of friends: bruises on her back, for example, and also inflammation in her right knee and pain in her left foot. All from the training. Lt. Blondell, the medical officer, examines her with concern. "Lieutenant, why are you doing this-" she asks O'Neil. The determined young woman, who shaved off her long hair so as not to stand out in the sea of exposed scalps, immediately answers: "Do you ask the men the same question-" A few years from now, this scene from "G.I. Jane," starring Demi Moore, might be seen as a relic of a bygone age. Partly because the film hasn't aged well since it hit the screen in 1997, but mainly because of an historic decision recently taken by U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter: to open all combat roles in the U.S. military to women, without exception. "There will be no exceptions. They'll be allowed to drive tanks, fire mortars and lead infantry soldiers into combat. They'll be able to serve as Army Rangers and Green Berets, Navy SEALs, Marine Corps infantry, Air Force parajumpers and everything else that was previously open only to men," Carter announced last week. The defense secretary didn't attempt to portray everything through rose-colored glasses. He stressed that anyone who wanted to serve in any given position must meet the established criteria, and added that some women met the stringent physical conditions the military demanded of its fighters, just as some men did not. Let's be clear: we are talking about nothing less than a revolution -- a breakthrough similar to the American military abolishing racial segregation in 1948 and the cancellation of the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy in 2011, which allowed gay and lesbian soldiers to serve without hiding their sexual identity. The decision will also narrow the discrepancy between official orders and what actually happens in the field; since the attack on the Twin Towers, female members of the American military stationed in Iraq or Afghanistan have found themselves in combat conditions, even if their jobs were not categorized as combat roles. Illinois Congresswoman Tammy Duckworth can testify to that firsthand: in 2004 the helicopter she was piloting was struck by rocket-propelled grenade fire from Iraqi rebels. She was seriously wounded and as a result had to have both her legs amputated. "I didn't lose them in a bar fight," Duckworth told a French news agency. "Of course women can serve in combat." Katelyn van Dam, an attack helicopter pilot in the Marine Corps, expressed a similar sentiment. "I'm overjoyed. Now if there is some little girl who wants to be a tanker, no one can tell her she can't," van Dam told The New York Times. But Carter's plan encountered a few surprisingly chilly reactions. One was from the person responsible for overseeing its execution, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford. His dissatisfaction was palpable even when the plan was announced, as he didn't even bother showing up for the press conference at which he was supposed to have taken part, standing at the defense secretary's side when the dramatic news was unveiled. When he realized that he would have to explain that he himself had reservations about the plan, or even worse -- function as a window dressing -- he avoided sharing the platform. Carter didn't force him to. Dunford later issued a lukewarm statement in which he tried to avoid any statement of support, saying, "I have had the opportunity to provide my advice on the issue of full integration of women into the armed forces. In the wake of the secretary's decision, my responsibility is to ensure his decision is properly implemented." To understand the reasons for the American chief of staff's opposition of the decision, one should remember that before he was appointed, he served as commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps. There, as they say, the culture is different. The vast majority (93%) of those who serve in the Marines are men, and some believe that integrating women into the Corps' combat positions could adversely affect the missions. Research conducted by the Marines this year showed that a unit comprised of men only was more efficient than a unit in which men and women served together, and Marines in male-only units tended to be wounded less. Dunford isn't the only one uncomfortable with the decision. Senate Armed Forces Committee Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.) wasn't rushing to pop the champagne, either. He mentioned that according to congressional rules, there was a 30-day period in which to examine the decision, which, as he put it, "will have a consequential impact on our service members and our military's war-fighting capabilities." Either way, encouraging buds have already started to sprout. The U.S. Navy and Air Force have opened almost all their combat roles to women, and integration is visible even in the Army's ground forces. In August, two women made history when they became the first of their sex to complete the Rangers training course. In October, a third woman joined them. Unlike the rest of troops who complete the training for the elite fighting force, they weren't able to join the 75th Rangers Regiment -- until now. Earning the beret When it comes to women in battle, the Americans aren't reinventing the wheel. Many Western nations, some allies of the U.S., have already integrated women in combat or are trying to do so gradually. In 2009, a comprehensive report on the issue prepared at the request of British defense secretary was published. (In the U.K., incidentally, women are still not permitted to serve in roles designed to "fight and kill the enemy," but the secretary has expressed hope that the prohibition would be lifted this year.) The tour of female fighters in the armies of the world can start with the Nordic countries, which always stand out as role models in every field. In 1985, for example, Norway became the first NATO nation to allow women to serve in every combat role in its military, including on submarines. As far as anyone knows, no female Norwegian soldier has yet taken part in battle, but nevertheless the presence of women is expected to improve operational results. Swedish women, it turns out, can also serve in any combat position they want. In recent years, the word has been that they have performed well in Afghanistan, racking up successes in neutralizing bombs and would-be suicide bombers thanks to fruitful cooperation with local Afghani women. Let's move on to France. The republic's motto is "liberty, equality, and fraternity," and the second principle is well-expressed in the French defense forces. Any women who want to prove that French women aren't as delicate as they appear can do so in almost any unit -- even infantry, although statistics show that only 1.7% of women serve in them. Also, as of today, French women still don't have the option of serving on submarines or in the Gendarmerie (the riot police.) It's interesting to note that women make up 15% of all personnel in the French military, the highest percentage in any European nation. In neighboring Germany, women can follow a military career in a variety of professions, including elite units like the naval commandos. This freedom isn't something to be taken for granted. Women started being placed in combat units only in 2001, after the European Court of Justice ruled in favor of Tanja Kreil, an electronics engineer who applied to join the Maintenance-Recovery Service (Electronics) technical unit of the German Armed Forces in 1996 and was rejected. Despite the fact that nothing stands in their way, it appears that German women prefer to serve in the military in medical or logistics roles, and only a few are interested in joining combat units. Canadian women also gained the ability to serve in any position in the military one step at a time. As a result of legal and political pressure, in 1989 the Canadian conference for Human Rights determined that women should be integrated into all positions in the military, with the exception of submarines. In 2001, that obstacle was removed, too. The trouble is that even after overcoming the formal hurdles, the military itself didn't know how to handle the responses. For years, doubt simmered about women's ability to serve in combat roles, until May 2006, when Capt. Nichola Goddard, then 26, who was stationed in Kandahar, Afghanistan, was killed during a clash with Taliban operatives, becoming the first woman in Canadian history to fall in battle on the front line. The nation's response to the incident did not focus on Goddard's gender, but rather the loss of a devoted, capable soldier. In September 2011, Canadian women were granted the right to serve in infantry and armored positions and take part in special operations, after that door was closed to them for years. They can also now serve as submariners in the Canadian Navy. The new threat: prejudice It doesn't matter what country a woman is from -- if she's serving in a combat position, she has to watch out for a dangerous, stubborn threat: doubt and stigma. The arguments are familiar. "Women have less strength and endurance than men"; "What will happen if she is taken captive-" U.S. Army Brig. Gen. (ret.) Rhonda Cornum, a flight surgeon and biochemist who found herself in the clutch of the Iraqis during the first Gulf War and was in fact sexually molested by one of her captors, has an unexpected answer to the second question. She doesn't consider it the worst part of her imprisonment, and once explained in an interview that when everything a person experiences is without consent, being molested was less relevant. Cornum, a major when she was captured, says that the bad scenarios should be reprioritized. The other nagging question, like the one asked by the medical officer in "G.I. Jane," is "why-" What for? Is it a desire to break through every social ban? A contrarian attempt to become a member of a club that doesn't want you? Women who serve in many different militaries give a much simpler explanation: there is no other way to climb the ladder. Experience in the infantry, in the field, is critical for career advancement. And if anyone has any doubt, they should take a look at the CVs of top military officials. "I honestly didn't think about women in combat much until Iraq," Maj. Jonathan Silk, a retired infantry officer, told The New York Times. "That is where I encountered female soldiers that were in the same firefights as us, facing the same horrible stuff, even if they weren't technically in combat units. They could fight just as well as I could, and some of those women were tremendous leaders. It gave me such respect," Silk said. Until the debate has a clear conclusion, women are left to rejoice over decisions like the ones that many western militaries are making. The decisions are building them a bridge to a fairer and more egalitarian reality, in every area of life.
And if not that, at least they can serve on the front line in the elite forces, even if they're not Demi Moore.
