Policy Analysis by Lama Hamade, Visiting Contributor

June 6th, 2021

Wars have been said to be the outcome in the absence of diplomatic negotiation; that is when the dispute due to the instability in mainly economic and social categories isn’t solved, war becomes the answer (Coccia, 2019).  For 19 years the USA has launched continuous wars on the Mediterranean Era under the name of “War on Terror” claiming to do all that it takes to end terrorism, inequality, and barbarism in the Middle East whereas the reality seemed far from that. In this article, I argue that gender ideologies shape the war on terror through comparing actions of war to that of masculine and feminine actions and creating narratives that suit gender standards to re-impose gender norms. I will explore that by using secondary sources from articles discussed by Bonnie Mann, Gutierrez, John W. Howard III and Laura C. Prividera, and many others. It is crucial to understand how and why gender ideologies shape the war on terror because the war on terror has been occurring ever since 2001 leading to deaths, corruptions, insecurity, and many more, yet still seems to be far away from ending. By that, it is a reality and influences our everyday lives. Also, this article highlights aspects of gender that are usually blurred and, by that, shows how gender is being constructed and question its validity.

To begin with, upon 9/11, photos were seen in the eyes of gender in a way to link the country to be either masculine or feminine. Examples of such include the depiction of the Twin Towers as being coerced by missiles and eventually collapsing portraying the enemy’s missiles as the male abusing the feminized Twin Towers (Mann, 2014, pp.4-5). This specific description resulted in the Americans becoming outraged as they considered that their masculinity was being taken away and they wanted to reclaim it as theirs. Mann (2014) puts it in the context of “sovereign masculinity” which is embedding gender ideologies at the level of the nation. By that, we mean that the stereotype of manhood and its application at the level of the nation makes the nation believe that it is superior to others. To put that in the context of the war on terror, the motives and measures that are taken to induce war on terror mainly focused on possessing stereotypical masculine traits upon the military and enforcing stereotypical feminine traits upon the enemy. Post 9/11, this became extremely important to Americans as they started to show that they are still “masculine” in terms of toughness and power. This is shown from many aspects starting with Bush’s choice of words upon declaration of the war on terror such as “We’ll smoke ‘em out!”, “dead or alive”, “Our country is strong”, … - all portraying Uncle Sam’s masculinity and flush of testosterone - in addition to the depiction of both Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden as “females” being manipulated by US bombs, Bush himself, etc. (Mann, 2014, pp4-5). Hence, depiction of events occurring at the national level are illustrated in terms of gender in stereotypical masculine and feminine way such that for the nation to be superior it must be seen as “masculine” and whenever depicted as “feminine” it becomes a shame and sign of weakness.

These are not the only ways in which sovereign masculinity is depicted. In fact, sovereign masculinity was also signified in the torturing of detainees. This was illustrated in Abu Ghraib Prison where Iraqis were being stripped in front of one another and in front of the US military and obliged to take poses that imitate “feminine” poses (Mann, 2014, p.ix). For Iraqis like Al-Shweiri, these were considered much more damaging than even the torture they had suffered by Saddam (Mann, 2014, p.ix). In addition to that, detainees were also forced to act like women. Gutierrez depicts certain situations in which Al-Qahtani, who got arrested at Guantanamo Bay as an al-Qaeda agent, was asked to put on female clothes, wear a fake burka and take dance lessons with a male interrogator just like “daddy’s little girl” (Gutierrez, 2006, pp.17-18) (Mann, 2014, p.196). By that, it is evident that the highest level of torture one undergoes are those that are gendered; mainly the act of de-gendering to the extent that the detainees preferred to be killed than to have to undergo this type of torture again (Mann, 2014, p.3). Hence, gender stereotypes are being used in war on terror in a sense of humiliating the detainees and in a form to emphasis on the superiority by being more “masculine” whereas the detainees are being seen as “feminine”.

Not so surprisingly, these weren’t yet the most dreadful conditions detainees were placed upon. There was still something more severe, more crucial, and had a greater impact which included the involvement of female interrogators.Arabs in general consider being feminized, like held naked in front of one another and having male US soldiers looking at them, as still far less damaging than when woman involvement was used. For instance, when she was asked about the reason for her presence in front of unclothed detainees, Lynndie England, the most famous figure of Abu Ghraib Prison, answered that it was for “Psyop reasons” and that it is “because I'm a female, and in the Muslim culture, it's very embarrassing or humiliating to be naked in front of another female” (Howard & Prividera, 2008, p.297). In the same way, was the condition with Mohammed Al-Qahtani. His records show that he would only speak English and become extremely aggressive and resistant when a female interrogator would try to invade his personal space or violate certain religious taboos (Gutierrez, 2006). Yet in this sense, weren’t females used and taken advantage of by their own government?

Unfortunately, females in the US military seemed far away from receiving any woman’s rights. According to the Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2019 Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military (2020), “the Military Services received a total of 7,825 reports of sexual assault […] which represents a 3 percent increase from reports received in FY18”. In addition to that, females are being used to impose torture on detainees by using their bodies. They are asked to show parts of their bodies and act in certain sexual ways to lure both the enemy and their male counterparts. In Al-Qahtani’s case, the female interrogator would be asked to invade Al-Qahtani’s personal space in a way of devoting her whole self to him disregarding what her opinion on the subject is and she would be told that this is her mission and that it is for America’s good (Gutierrez, 2006) (Mann, 2014, p197). The same goes for the case of Lynndie England. According to Howard III and Prividera, “Both the military and her male peers used her for her female body rather than her officially assigned the military role of the clerk” (2008, p.297). She was videotaped with her boyfriend and in front of Iraqis committing adultery (Thompson, 2015, pp.13-14) and she believed that everything she was doing was for America’s sake and that she will be a “hero” (Thompson, 2015, p.7). Furthermore, women's narratives are being constructed and females seem to have no right to tell their side of the story until it no longer matters. A perfect example is Jessica Lynch’s story where the government and the military took turns to tell her story in a way that suits them. They described her as being abused by Iraqis and that she has tried to defend herself upon the attack and appeared to be a hero when in reality she was extremely scared and prayed for her survival (Kumar, 2007, p.301). She also said that she was treated in great manners by the Iraqis, and she received good treatment, etc., yet these didn’t seem to matter after all the narratives that had been circulating (Kumar, 2007, pp.304-305). It is crucial to note that there are situations in which the US military attempted to refute that idea of sovereign masculinity in certain ways such as the videos of the US military mimicking moves of certain video-clips and songs, then how can we address that in terms of the sovereign masculinity that considers being masculine as a source of power?

As a matter of fact, and despite how paradoxical it might seem, the picturing of male military soldiers performing women's actions does not counteract with the idea of sovereign masculinity but acts as a complement to it. To begin with, these videos got revealed in 2012 when sexual assaults incidents in the military had increased by 36% to reach 26,000 cases (Pramaggiore, 2017, p104). These videos were needed to “modulate and soften the male warrior iconography” to please the American audience (Pramaggiore, 2017, p104). When males were pictured to imitate females from “Call Me Maybe”, for instance, they were showing weapons and sources of power (Pramaggiore, 2017, pp.102-103). In addition, these videos help make the military seem cute and charming and hide all aspects of wars and cruelty for they are seen as “no more harmful” (Pramaggiore, 2017, pp.102-103). An important idea to consider is that these aspects help to make the USA viewed as civilized and gender tolerant. By that, the USA is shown to be aiming to make the Middle East more civilized like itself and as a proof of the USA wanting only to establish peace and righteousness in the Middle East. Nevertheless, the military feminizing itself is way much more different than when the military is being feminized by others. It is as if saying “we can feminize you and ourselves, but you can’t do it to us” which is in turn showing one’s power over the other which is a stereotypical masculine trait. To take it in another aspect, Arabs watching these videos might consider them silly and that they lack manhood, but on the other hand, these are the same people who had tortured them and shattered them from their masculinity. So, to go back to Al-Shweiry’s perspective in the sense that it is one thing to be tortured by males yet a completely new level of embarrassment to be tortured by males proud to act like females, and in other words, they would feel that they had been beaten by soft girlish military. Thus, even when imitating “feminine” moves, this is not to be considered as a proof of gender tolerance and that there is no sovereign masculinity. The question becomes why is gender being used in war?

The direct reason to use gender in war is to strip the enemy’s identity and masculinity. The US military is taught by Raphael Patai’s book The Arab Mind to “understand the enemy” and find the best ways to torture them which in turn is centered on shattering them from their masculinity (Mann, 2014, pp. ix-x). US military wants to deprive the enemy of the core identity and use gender since it has its own “ontological weight” as described by Mann (2014) for it can’t be avoided and has a huge impact on the individual. One way it was expressed was upon the torturing of Al-Qahtani. His gender was eventually torturing him, it was a self-betrayal for “he experiences himself as simultaneously powerless and yet actively complicit in his own violation” by his gender; whatever he chose to do, he has eventually given the US regime its demands (Mann, 2014, p.197). By eventually removing the enemy’s self-identity, it will stand powerless and shameful and weak in the eyes of the USA that will see itself as superior. But does the USA care primarily to only make the enemy feel that it has no identity? Did USA undergo all that just to make them feel weak? Certainly not.

The purpose of using gendered war is to re-impose gendered norms that in turn serve a greater aspect which will be discussed right after that. Why would it matter to throw Lynch a huge ceremony with awards and celebrations? Why was it Lynch and no one else? Has it been the case that Lynch was the first female in the military or the first to have been in this situation? As a matter of fact, there have been two other females that encountered similar situations like those of Lynch-like Rachel Corrie and Shoshana Johnson. The difference remains in that Johnson was a black woman and thus couldn’t be Lynch in terms of considering her as an American girl and “the girl next door” (Kumar, 2007, p.302). Although Corrie resembled Lynch in terms of the “American girl”, yet she went to Palestine to stop the killing of Palestinians, and of course, this was against the American regime and thus couldn’t be the “Image of America” as Lynch (Kumar, 2007, p.302). Lynch was then pictured as the girl who was brave and strong yet still needed protection from her male colleagues (Kumar, 2007, p.304). In that way, reinforcement of gender norms takes place where the males are the heroes and the ones ready to fight for the sake of the females who are weak, emotional, and in constant need of protection. The same goes for England for if she wasn’t considered possessing American attributes such as being white, she wouldn’t have been pictured as the falling woman, and would have simply been disregarded (Howard III & Prividera, 2008, p.308). Through assessing the narratives of women, reinforcement of gender is re-obtained and deeply strengthen. And for what exactly shall you ask?

All of what has been mentioned serves primarily to extend the war on terror, for it to never end. By using gender, the greater picture is hidden. For instance, focusing on England and her actions at Abu Ghraib helps to deviate from the whole purpose of having the USA in Iraq, from questioning the true intentions and purposes of the USA. Is it the case that the USA is fighting terror? How is it doing so? Are the detainees held accountable and belong to terrorist groups or are they just innocent and captured? Is it the case that Iraq is a threat to the USA and Iraqis are barbaric or is it the other way around? These questions and so much more are all neglected and go uncriticized. The same goes for the idea of Lynch. Instead of truly getting to know the story, the narratives all work together to impose that Iraq remains a threat and should go down all in a masculine sense.

The USA has long benefited from the war on terror. It increased ratings on movies and shows and created outstanding profits (Castonguay, 2004, p.103). In addition to that, war has caused infinite destructions to both infrastructures and humanitarian loss causing countries in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region to be far away from safety and thus far away from having good GDP. For instance, in Iraq, the GDP decreased from 1.41% in 2000 to -33.10% in 2003 (MacroTrends, 2020). Furthermore, the war on terror was used for political reasons and elections. For instance, Obama promised to rebalance America’s war on terror and to fight terrorists (Williams & Covarrubias, 2010, ch.15). Moreover, the USA benefits from having troops in the MENA region for strategic reasons especially those having to do with Iran (Lostumbo et al., 2013). Hence, war on terror has largely benefited USA especially those who are rich and in power. War on terror has been used as a winning card to reach certain goals whether economic, political, strategical, and much more. When gender was being used, the need for war on terror increased greatly and hit hardly that it became so hard to continue the war without manipulating gender norms and re-emphasizing them. 

In conclusion, the USA has been re-implementing gender norms under the name of “war on terror” through sovereign masculinity and constructing dominant narratives all in favor to extend the war in the Middle East for its benefits. It is important to understand how gendered wars are created and constructed to allow better resistance against them for once the purpose gets exposed, solutions are better implemented. Gender norms are being manipulated and constructed not in favor of every individual but for the few who are in power. In that sense, endangering a whole society’s identity and fundamental basis. The world is being molded in selfish ways that in the long run will only cause disasters. USA claimed to fight terror yet manipulating identity can only lead to more terrorism which will come back to the USA in a new form of 9/11, so things must be further investigated and studied.

 

 

References

Castonguay, J. (2004). Conglomeration, new media, and the cultural production of the "war on terror". Cinema Journal, 43(4), 102-108. doi:10.1353/cj.2004.0029

Coccia, M. (2019). Theories and the reasons for war: a survey. Journal of Economic and Social Thought, 6(2), 115-124.http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.aub.edu.lb/10.1453/jest.v6i2.1890

Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2019 Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military. (2020). https://media.defense.gov/2020/Apr/30/2002291660/-1/-1/1/1_DEPARTMENT_OF_DEFENSE_FISCAL_YEAR_2019_ANNUAL_REPORT_ON_SEXUAL_ASSAULT_IN_THE_MILITARY.PDF.

Gutierrez, G. S. (2006). Declaration of Gitanjali S. Gutierrez, Esq., Lawyer for Mohammed al Qahtani . Rage University. http://rageuniversity.com/PRISONESCAPE/PRISON%20SURVIVAL/INTERROGATION%20%20Al%20Qahtani.pdf.

Howard, J. W., & Prividera, L. C. (2008). The fallen woman archetype: Media representations of lynndie england, gender, and the (ab)uses of U.S. female soldiers. Women's Studies in Communication, 31(3), 287-311. doi:10.1080/07491409.2008.10162544

Iraq GDP Growth Rate 1969-2020. MacroTrends. (2020). https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/IRQ/iraq/gdp-growth-rate. 

Kumar, D. (2007). War propaganda and the (AB)uses of women. Taylor & Francis. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1468077042000309955?scroll=top. 

Lostumbo, M. J., McNerney, M. J., Peltz, E., Eaton, D., Frelinger, D. R., Greenfield, V. A., … Worman, S. M. (2013, April 29). U.S. Overseas Military Posture. RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9708.html. 

Mann, B. (2014-01-08). Sovereign Masculinity: Gender Lessons from the War on Terror. : Oxford University Press. Retrieved 21 Nov. 2020, from https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199981649.001.0001/acprof-9780199981649.

Pramaggiore, P. (2017) “I’ll be dancin’”: American soldiers, cute YouTube performances, and the deployment of soft power in the war on terror. In J. P. Dale, J. Goggin, J. Leyda, A. McIntyre & D. Negra (Eds.), (pp. 105-121) Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315658520-10

Thompson, J. (2015). Palace of the End. Google. https://books.google.com.lb/books/about/Palace_of_the_End.html?id=JwSzVZjE3eUC.

Williams, M. & Covarrubias, J. (2010) (Rebalancing America’s war on terror: President obama. (2010). In T. Lansford (Ed.), (pp. 275-296) Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315566702-23