Feminism means going against the surge

Carolyn Bradley Guest Writer

Like most “competing” leftist movements, feminism and peace politics have always had a touchy relationship. It’s as true now as ever. These days, the waters of peace activism are brimming with women’s organizations that claim to support feminism, while adopting the same troublesome maternalistic rhetoric that has plagued female peace politics for decades (Code Pink, I’m looking at you). Women are presented as “guardians of life,” and thus natural leaders of the peace movement. Besides its inherent sexism, the real problem with this concept is its tacit acceptance of the culture’s construction of masculinity in terms of violence and brute strength. After all, if women make peace, then men must first make war.

It’s enough to drive this anti-war feminist insane.

So here’s a question: Is peace really a feminist issue? In the wake of President Bush’s call to send 20,000 additional troops to Iraq to “surge” into Baghdad, it would seem as good a time as any to ask. In spite of so many botched attempts to bridge feminism and peace politics, I’d say the answer is still a resounding “yes.” The truth is, the purpose of feminism, of any civil rights movement, is every person’s right to freedom and safety. And it’s to this end that feminists must fight against the injustice of the Iraq war and the proposed surge (why the maternalists have to complicate this is beyond me).

Fundamentally, the arguments against the Iraq War have never really changed (it’s American imperialism, stupid!). It’s just now that the mounting death toll of Iraqi civilians (55,000) and American soldiers (3,000) make those arguments all the more urgent. As for Iraqi women, they have been made particularly vulnerable by the war, as they rely more heavily on a stable economy and sound infrastructure than men. More disturbing, according to the Global Policy Forum, is the fact that reported incidents of sexual violence and assault against women have increased dramatically in Iraq since the start of the U.S.-led invasion. Rape statistics are notoriously unreliable, but it’s worth pointing out that just two weeks ago, an American soldier pled guilty in the rape and murder of a 14-year-old girl in Mahmudiya.

Of course, none of this is new. If the message that the Iraq war has been a heinously violent, atrocious disaster hadn’t gotten out by now, then I’d really have to wonder. In fact, polls show that a full 80 percent of the American public is opposed to escalating the war. Even the military, once a staunch supporter of the President and the war, has lost faith: 62 percent of active military members oppose the surge, and barely one-third approve of the way the President is handling the war. People want change in Iraq, but all the President is willing to provide is more of the same—plus twenty-thousand. So it’s up to the new members of Congress to fulfill the wishes of the people who sent them there. And that means saying no to the surge.

Still, I for one won’t just be waiting on Congress. Because if there is any lesson to be taken from the Bush presidency, it’s that the will of the many is easily thwarted by that of the well-organized few. Leftists can just be so frustratingly timid sometimes, shying away on important matters, because they would prefer to leave them for someone better-informed to sort out. But maybe leftists should stop waiting for someone “better-informed” to decide; that person tends to be President Bush. Stopping the surge may not bring peace, at least not to the Iraqis, but as far as I can see, it has to be the right thing to do.

So write your representatives; avoid maternalistic peace politics if you can. And most importantly, speak out. Everywhere.