11 thoughts on “4 | Militarism and Militarization”
Nozomi Shirakawa
This week’s reading provided insights to militarism, peace and conflict, and feminist approaches. In addition to the required reading, I chose, Laura Shepherd’s “Making war safe for women? National Action Plans and the militarisation of the Women, Peace and Security agenda.”
Firstly, the podcast — wow. I’m both angered and saddened after listening to this. I am angry, because of this demonstrates the type of people and persona that represents the military, who is supposed to ensure safety and peace of the population. When the United States, arguably the most powerful country in the world, has a military that is so deeply masculine and toxic, I question and feel insecure about our safety. While we can critique Barbara Lee’s decision, I was left feeling sorry for her. What a lonely position she must have been in. It’s often difficult when you disagree with something fundamentally but cannot fully fight the system and be somewhat complicit. When I was in Kenya, I felt complicit — I knew it was not my place to speak out, as I was there to do research, but some of the things that we witnessed broke my heart. I feel like I have been reflecting and struggling on this since my return, as I feel the guilt of not fighting against the system, but I question, “what can I do? To what extent would my part do to resolve the issue?”
The readings demonstrate the urgent need to rethink and unlearn some of the narratives in militarization, war, and peace. MacKenzie and Wegner say, “Gender and war are therefore co-constitutive: gender norms drive processes of war and militarisation, and war and militarisation reinforce or challenge existing gender norms.” Then, how do we challenge the gender norms when the system is cyclical? It calls to approach security by acknowledging and examining political phenomena and forms of insecurity, such as sexual violence. Women and other gender-diverse people are disproportionately affected by the war, and during peacemaking. When the homogenous group of men decide what is in our best interest and decide what safety/peace look like, they forget to recognize the different experience faced by different communities. In the Dowler reading, she further states that “women put down their rifles to find that little has been altered and the national goals of women remain eclipsed by the newly defined needs of the sovereign as defined by men.” This connects the two readings, where the needs of the sovereign are defined by men, and national goals of women are eclipsed. To this, WPS agenda needs to effectively challenge the dynamics of militarism and elite-centric security governance. Shepherd criticizes the NAP for its hypocrisy, as it misses the purpose of WPS agenda.
In such a male-dominated field, I wonder how feminist approaches can be effectively incorporated. Despite the increased effort to include more women, this again misses the point. It’s not about the number, but how the system operates. How do we transform the system that operates with masculinity, and instead center love and care to conflicts, wars, and peace?
This week had perspectives offered by Catherine Lutz, Laura J. Shepherd, and Swati Parashar in their respective works on militarism and militarization. What comes out of these readings is a nuanced and interconnected understanding of these complex issues begins to unfold.
Lutz’s exploration of the historical expansion of the military apparatus in the United States prompts contemplation on the pervasive nature of militarization. The idea that militarism transcends traditional boundaries, seeping into the fabric of society, challenges preconceived notions about the clear demarcation between the military and civilian spheres. It raises intriguing questions about how the normalization of military presence in everyday life may influence societal values and norms.The challenge to preconceived notions about the clear demarcation between the military and civilian spheres sparks a cascade of reflections on the nature of citizenship, governance, and the very foundations of societal structures. How does the normalization of military presence in everyday life alter the dynamics of civil-military relations? The interplay between military institutions and the citizenry becomes a crucial focal point, prompting us to question the balance of power, accountability, and the potential erosion of democratic values. Moreover, the influence of militarization on societal values and norms emerges as a particularly intriguing aspect. How does the ubiquity of military symbols, language, and practices shape collective attitudes and beliefs? Lutz’s work encourages us to scrutinize the narratives propagated by a militarized society – the glorification of military prowess, the romanticization of conflict, and the potential suppression of dissenting voices. These reflections compel us to confront the subtle ways in which militarization molds public consciousness and contributes to the shaping of a national identity deeply intertwined with military culture.Turning to Shepherd’s examination of the Women, Peace and Security agenda, a thought-provoking inquiry emerges regarding the unintended consequences of ostensibly progressive policies. The juxtaposition of feminist goals with militarization, as discussed in the context of National Action Plans, invites reflection on the complexities of gender dynamics within militarized spaces. It challenges assumptions about the inherently positive impact of gender-related initiatives within the military, urging a reconsideration of the broader implications for women’s rights in conflict zones. Parashar’s work on postcolonial anxieties and excessive militarism in India deepens the reflection by highlighting the discursive strategies that enable militarization. The emphasis on internal dynamics and historical insecurities prompts consideration of how narratives of threat and vulnerability contribute to the perpetuation of militaristic practices. This prompts a critical examination of the ways in which postcolonial states navigate their security concerns and how these considerations shape national identity.
As these reflections intertwine, a common thread emerges – militarization is not a singular phenomenon but a complex web of interconnected processes. It’s a phenomenon that extends beyond the conventional understanding of warfare, infiltrating societal structures, gender relations, and postcolonial narratives. The insights from these works collectively challenge us to question existing paradigms and rethink our assumptions about the relationships between military institutions, society, and identity. In contemplating the depth and breadth of militarization, the reflection naturally extends to the broader implications for governance, democracy, and the overall well-being of societies. How do militarized societies grapple with issues of civil liberties, dissent, and the role of the state in citizens’ lives? What are the long-term effects of a society accustomed to the omnipresence of the military?
When I think of the military, I think tanks, guns, and some sort of physical army – which very much gives me the ‘ick’. I had never paused to reflect on everyday militarism and how it is embedded in our day-to-day. In our discussion last week, we started to unpack the role of society in upholding and perpetuating ‘invisible violence’, and how war is much more than person-to-person combat; rather, it is so much more and can invade the most intimate parts of a person (i.e. a woman’s womb and dreams). After reading this week’s readings, I believe a similar perspective can be considered when thinking about military and militarization.
If war and violence have been normalized in our lives, so has the perception of military and militarization. Mackenzie and Wegner illustrate how everyday militarism can manifest in North America: wearing poppies on Remembrance Day, commemorating wars, supporting the troops’ campaigns, and even video games (i.e. Call of Duty). This begs the question: if war, violence, and military have been normalized – have the consequences of war/violence been normalized too? (I hesitate to ask that question because we might be witnessing the answer to that question today through the responses of states towards the Israel/Gaza war)
Radio Lab’s podcast made me reflect on how language, specifically in the AUMF, enables and aids in justifying detention, detainment, and surveillance in national and international contexts (using the US as an example). Rozina Ali’s Twitter thread highlighted this through the US’s various racially-targeted detention, detainments, and deportations of Muslim & immigrant men in a post 9/11 US. We then see how society can further contribute to upholding the state’s force through invisible violence (although sometimes this is overt). For example, Suheir Hammad’s poem shared instances of people asking about her brother in the military in the post-9/11 context. Internationally, the Radio Lab podcast unpacks how the language in the AUMF was used to enable violence in Vietnam, Iran, Afghanistan, and many more places that we aren’t even aware of. The AUMF language allows the US state to ‘use force’ (in whatever way the current administration deems fit) to ‘protect’ the US. I thought the concluding question of the podcast was particularly powerful: if we’re fighting while technically not at war with them, what’s the difference between war and peace? What does peace actually look like if we’re always trying to protect ourselves above everything? (Curious for everyone’s thoughts on this!)
The link between gender and the military was interesting for me. I’ve always silently wondered why (it seems like a majority of) men are so invested and interested in WWII, the American Civil War, and basically any form of combat/violence. MacKenzie and Wegner explain that “because [the] association with masculinity adds value in society, and because masculinity has been culturally linked to military activities, militarism is promoted as a ‘value-added’ ideology in many societies” (p.293). As we give militarization and militarism value in our society, we’re subsequently devaluing the lives of those around us – by gender, gender identity, race, religion, ethnicity, etc… I think Suherir’s words summarized it well: “Shit is complicated, but I know who pays”.
Starting on a personal note, as a child my mother did a 2-year secondment as an HR professional at the Canadian Armed Forces Base Toronto at Denison Armouries. I was about 7 when she started, and despite my age. I remember how excited I was to visit her at the base. She walked my brother and I around where we met many people in uniform and saw big weapons simulators used for training. At this time, Canada deployed many troops to Afghanistan including some of my moms’ colleagues. We sent them care packages. I don’t think this is the first time I experienced militarism, but it is a memory I won’t forget. In reflecting on the mandatory readings from this week, as well as Laura Shepherd’s article on National Action Plans (NAPs), I have become overwhelmed thinking about how militarization takes root in the ordinary processes of daily life and are so normalized they are accepted as commonplace. Do I think my mom was trying to enforce the value of military on me at the age of 7? Probably not. But I do think that she, like many of us, is deeply affected by the valorisation of military institutions and approaches, including the hierarchical organisation of social and political life. Can I blame her? It’s literally everywhere.
Not only is it everywhere, its also not that easy to question it. As Jad Abumrad noted in response to the Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001, “it was important [to Bush] that we project unity, that we were all standing together as one.” We are taught not to question militarization because, as MacKenzie and Wegner argue, “male-bodied subjects who conduct [war] are assigned power and prestige socially”. We are taught that the military serves to protect us from the bad, known, and unknown, and to do this, we should be thankful and unified. The moving parts of this game are a lot to wrap my head around. But I found Dowler’s call to Gagen’s argument that “our understanding of the homeland evokes sentiments of the safety of the home and fear of places beyond the nation-state” to be helpful. I think, people who question militarization are often made to feel naïve or stupid for not understanding how dangerous and bad the world would be without military. Or worse, as in Barbara Lee’s case met with accusations of being on the side of the perpetrators of 9/11 and faced the possibility of losing her job—being against her own country. Almost 23 years later, I still find myself hesitating to question the manifestations of militarism in society; “are people going to think I’m a hippie or against the government?” Maybe, but I am hesitating less these days.
In addition to the fear mongering tactics involved in militarization, citizens are subordinated by the military as the military manages ‘the business’ of peace and security and are the ‘experts’ engaging in this business operating comfortably within its parameters. The twitter thread by Rozina Ali demonstrates this in describing the blatant human rights violations against Muslim men following 9/11 and consequently, AUMF. The FBI and CIA, while operating completely out of their mandates, and against the law, were rarely if ever questioned on their actions. This is a direct result of militarism; where security organizations can act as they want to address a ‘perceived threat’, without clear or singular goals or outcomes. As such, we have seen the US and its allies classify anything as aggression, including simply living in the US as a racialized person. This vagueness plays nicely into the personal bias of many people involved in upholding militarization and I wonder if this was intended when drafting the AUMF to be as broad as it was. Was it considered that the perception of these authorities would be dependent on a NYPD officer looking for a tenant in their home, or a US military officer in a prison abroad and carried out however they deem fit in that moment? To move past this, an intersectional approach to war is not the answer, rather, a disassembly of militarism in general where security organizations are not even given the option to perceive their authority in applying violence. I wonder how we as academics can support the demilitarisation of society and facilitate the development of anti-militarist politics of peace in a way that is conducive to change? How can we as individuals and ‘civilians’ counter the century old acceptance of the use of force as a means of peace? Especially when war is a trillion dollar business, is there any way that it can be decentralized in society?
In their exploration of the “continuum” of wars, Mackenzie and Wegner suggest that the impact of militarization goes beyond the rise of “nationalist and militant fundamentalism or the increase in armies and arsenals” and leads to the “reproduction of beliefs and structures that result in inequality, conflict and domination as normal or desirable.” This is seen everywhere, and sadly, is present even in the language used to describe some groups versus others.
This is seen in the selective grief and double standards of framing that militarism, militarization, and (often racist + white supremacist ethnocentrism) create in that they see the deaths of some people as worthy of mourning, but diminish the deaths (and lives) of others. We see this tragically in real time, where media coverage labels Hamas = terrorists, but Israeli Security Forces committing genocide in real time = soldiers; Israeli civilians = victims; Palestinian civilians = casualties.
Suheir Hammad also explores this powerfully when she references grief from 9/11 as a justification for the US’s violent and persistent militarism: “Iraqi children, the dead in Nicaragua, in Rwanda…” and the double standard of vilifying certain “hooded men, holy books, and death” but not including the Bible, the KKK, religious leaders in Residential Schools, or the vilification of white men in other acts of mass violence on US-soil (i.e. McVeigh in Oklahoma). Militarism so powerfully creates a notion of us versus them – and gives us, as Chris Hedges writes in his book War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning, a sense of “meaning” so intoxicating and misguided that we come to believe that some are worthy of vilification and death, but not all – and certainly not those who look like us. Militarism then is not only the direct physical violence of war, but the flow-through of the ideas and ideologies that justify war and its impacts on every.single.part.of.life – and in doing so it builds a “justification” of systemic oppression and exclusion from belonging.
Another theme that emerged throughout the readings + episodes, was the unfair and daunting legacy of 9/11 on the systemic “othering” of Muslim and Arabic peoples in the United States, when their entire identity, from their beliefs to their appearance, has been pushed into harmful categories and stereotypes, and not given space to grieve, grow, or process themselves or to navigate the complexity of their own identities. Hammad writes of her brothers, they are: “Muslim, gentle men, members of the Navy. born in Brooklyn” yet “asked if they know the terrorists” or “what Navy are they in?”. When I listened to the 60 Words, 20 Years version of the Radiolab podcast (that aired in September 2021, as the US was “ending” the war in Afghanistan), I found the reflections of host Sarah Qari about being a young Muslim girl in the US after 9/11 and the immense pressure put on her to “represent Islamic people well” so harrowing. Simply because of her identity, family, and religion, she – a girl in grade 2 – would have to carry an impossible emotional and mental burden for the rest of her life.
Questions:
– How can approaches to post-war recovery or reconstruction (whatever that means in the day of Forever Wars…) include restorative justice for those whose very identity and personhood have faced subtle, direct, and everyday violence (against their person, their body, their future, etc.), though they themselves did not see “battle”?
– Suheir Hammad’s poem ‘First Writing Since’ ends with the poignant juxtaposition of a phrase earlier in the poem: a movement from the vile notion that “you’re either with the terrorists or against them” to a more accurate and cross-boundary invitation that “you’re either with life or against it.” How can we be FOR LIFE in a world rampant with militarization?
These three readings, each offered a nuanced exploration of gender dynamics within militarized contexts, which helped me understand the intersectionality of gender, militarization, and societal structures.
I decided to read the reading posted on the X thread that delved into the post-9/11 era in the United States, highlighting the government’s reliance on informants within Muslim communities. It raised questions about coercion, trust, and the role of citizens in national security. The reading unsettles with its portrayal of the pushing of personal freedoms and privacy, underlining how gender and ethnicity interplay within these dynamics.
This reading was and thread were both very personal to me, as my mom ( a Hijabi women ) was sent to work in the USA 14 days after 9/11 and was confronted to all sorts of racism and islamophobia that got life-threatening at some point. She was denied job opportunities and got a lot of setbacks for a situation that she had nothing to do with all along.
The Gender, Militarization and Sovereignty reading by Lorraine Dowler examines the gendered aspects of militarization and sovereignty. It discusses how women’s bodies and lives are often instrumentalized for nationalistic purposes, and how militarization extends beyond the battlefield into the social and domestic spheres. The paper prompts reflection on the pervasive impact of militarization on everyday life and the often invisible labor of women within militarized societies.
This also resonated deeply with me and thinking of what my grandmother used to tell me about how their bodies were weaponized during the colonial era either as an object of desire from the French and the Spanish or as a tool that can be used to create more soldier to protect the country.
The “Precarious attachments: soldiers and erasures of the feminine in the Pakistan military” focused on the Pakistani military, revealing how the feminine is both essential and erased within the military framework. The concept of “precarious attachments” between soldiers and their female kin is particularly striking, showing how emotional labor is gendered and vital for the sustenance of militaristic institutions. This reading raises questions about the role of gender in sustaining militaristic cultures and the emotional toll on those involved.
Each reading intersects with the theme of gender within militarized and surveillance contexts, demonstrating how women’s roles and emotions are manipulated for broader nationalistic or militaristic goals. These readings collectively raise unsettling insights about the depth of gendered power dynamics in militarized societies.
Reflective Questions:
1. How do these readings challenge or reinforce our understanding of the relationship between gender and militarization in different cultural contexts?
2. In what ways do the concepts of surveillance and militarization intersect with gender to shape societal dynamics and individual experiences?
In my father’s words, “Pakistan does not have an army. The army has Pakistan.” This stark observation effectively captures the military’s overbearing grip on my country—a grip that extends into the very essence of our lives as citizens seemingly forsaken by a system we have little control over.
Raised by parents who were outspoken critics of the military, I, along with many of my fellow Pakistanis, have witnessed a paradoxical surrender of our democratic freedoms to the powers that be. This submission occurs under a facade of democracy that Pakistan projects internationally, albeit one that is far from the reality that is experienced within.
That being said, my life — coming from Pakistan — has been heavily militarized, in a number of ways. From the direct involvement of Pakistan’s military to the repercussions of the U.S. war on terror affecting civilian lives in Waziristan, the shadow of military presence is an omnipresent specter.
This pervasive military ethos is not merely a backdrop but a penetrating force, shaping our existence and demanding our reluctant reverence. As Maria Rashid articulates in ‘Precarious Attachments’, I have also directly observed the gendered dichotomy ingrained in the military culture. A culture that funnels children into cadet colleges, that later strip them of their childhood and indoctrinate them into becoming subservient cogs in a machine that perpetuates and amplifies global violence.
This makes me think about the grand architecture of history and the twisting paths that have led humanity to its present condition. I think of a parallel reality where my homeland, not robbed of her riches, her dignity, and her territories, might have flourished. What would she resemble in an alternate timeline where her potential was allowed to unfurl, unburdened by the shadows of exploitation?
This pervasive culture of conflict, a seemingly inherent trait in human societies, has normalized war-mongering. The insidious acceptance of aggression as a means to an end raises questions about the lessons of history and the values we champion. How did the global narrative come to celebrate the warrior over the peacemaker?
In the 60 Words podcast, Jad Abumrad brings to the forefront some pressing concerns about America’s war on terror. It highlights how, despite President Obama’s speech at the National Defense University, where he spoke of ending this war, there seemed to be an undercurrent suggesting it might just continue under a different name. It’s a clever twist of words and laws that could mean we’re looking at a never-ending cycle of conflict, where the end of one battle is just a setup for the next.
This is what Rozina Ali also talks about in her Twitter thread. Every year on September 11, we remember the lives lost in the Twin Tower attack but we can also never forget the countless innocent lives that have paid the price of a crime that they never committed since that day. The pervasive fear experienced by Muslim immigrant communities, a reality I’ve witnessed firsthand, is a stark reminder of the profound impact of that day’s events on lives around the globe.
When you can’t clearly define who you’re fighting against, and your tactics are just as unclear, it seems like you’re always at war and peace is just a short break before the next round of fighting. This hits home for me personally. My brother, a brown Muslim man from Pakistan, was racially profiled and singled out for ‘not-so-random’ security checks every time he entered the U.S. during his postgrad. Could it be because the idea of an “enemy” has become so broad that it now includes anyone who looks like him?
The narrative that has emerged post-9/11 often frames security as requiring a trade-off with personal freedoms. In many countries, especially those directly involved in the war on terror, there has been an increase in surveillance and a tightening of security measures, often justified by the need to protect national security.
Keeping that in mind, the question that comes up for me is how narratives shaped by the war on terror impact our understanding of freedom and security, both within and beyond the borders of countries directly involved?
Listening to the “60 Words” podcast the political language and rhetoric surrounding the decision to go to war caught my attention. It is interesting to look at how choice of words by politicians shapes public perception and potentially makes people complicit in supporting wars without the full understanding. This is seen in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, when the U.S. was facing a pivotal moment in deciding to go to war. For example, while the president can take decisions to go to war in cases of emergency like the 9/11, President Bush’s tactic to seek congressional approval for war reflects a strategic move to project unity and garner widespread support. Another example, is the choice of words in the AUMF, where instead of explicitly using the term “declaring war” they used “authorization to use force” to positively frame the military actions. I think Barbara Lee’s stance stands out – I can only imagine how hard it was for A WOMAN OF COLOR, to be the only one to vote for NO. But this serves as a reminder that individuals can choose not to become complicit in actions that conflict with their principles. Her decision, despite challenges and emotional complexities, exemplifies the courage to stand for what is right. Listening to the speech where Bush said, “we are going to war to prevent future acts of international terrorism,” I started reflecting on the logic notion of achieving peace through conflict and whether there are circumstances where resorting to armed conflict might be morally defensible?
Suheir Hammad’s poetry from 12 years ago sadly resonates with today’s reality in Gaza. In her beautifully poignant words, she eloquently pointed out the double standard that comes with war, where terrorism and killings done by white men has not been called out. Yet, all Arabs became enemies and suspects, often facing violence after 9/11. Her poetry also portrays the concept of “othering” using her lived experience and the experiences of many Muslims and Arabs. For example, the shocking questions she was asked if she knew the hijackers and questioned her brother being in the Navy, just because they are Arabs. Events like 9/11 or the current Israel are examples of how can wars can deepen divisions, fuel hatred, and contribute to the rise of Islamophobia across the globe. Many individuals unknowingly became complicit in wars without being directly involved in the military or on the battlefield. For example, “the social media war” today. I think it is the best case of militarization- Many people are at war on their phone and in their homes. This makes me question the meaning of peace!
The two readings illustrate the vulnerability of women within the military context, showing the link between gender, security, and militarism. The authors explain how entrenched gender norms and biases influence traditional ideas, particularly affecting women in the military. They emphasize the critical need to recognize and scrutinize political phenomena, such as sexual violence, to gain a comprehensive understanding of this security concerns. They underscore the disproportionate impact on women and other gender-diverse individuals during both wartime and peacemaking efforts. The authors reveal a link between masculinity, militarism, and the endorsement of aggressiveness in the military force. This connection highlights the societal devaluation of traits associated with women, portraying them as less important. It’s truly unjust that even the women at the forefront, courageously risking their lives, cannot receive the protection they deserve!
Congresswoman Barbara Lee’s speech was short but powerful as she talks about the consequences of militarization. The firm belief that strong military action prevents future terrorism, its very premise is wrong. We see time and again that the opposite is true, with the creation of the Taliban with the US in Afghanistan, then Iraq, then Libya, then Yemen, Syria, Palestine, and even in the case of Balochistan in Pakistan. We see that people do not like the idea of being afraid in their own lands and how marginalization leads to radicalization, how their is a thin line between radicalization and gradual “level-up” to violent streams of this. Miss Lee’s plea to stop and reflect so that they do not become the very evil they deplore raises questions about the ethics surrounding militarization. I saw the film Israelism featuring Simone Zimmerman tonight and Gabor Mate (as speaker), it was centered on the schooling or rather indoctrination of Jewish children into becoming Israeli, and teaching them the two were inseparable. The film showed how children and youth are misled to believe that for them to be safe, the Palestinians have to be unsafe, and the only way to do so is increased securitization of Israel and intimidation of the Palestinians. Gabor said sometimes all it takes is a seed, to plant a seed. It got me thinking that a seed, a voice of doubt to either lead us to the truth or to falsehood, and that is very scary to me.
What Rozina Ali said in her thread is not news to me or any desi/Muslim/Middle Eastern person. There is a sort of anger actually because those of us who are sane and luckily that is the most of us, do mourn 9/11 and the sufferings of those in the West. But we cannot comprehend how our pain post 9/11 is not reciprocated. I always get vetted crossing into the States even with a Canadian passport and I was a toddler at the time 9/11 even happened. Our 9/11 is 24/7 as harsh as that may sound, the witch hunt never stopped. The men face the worst of it.
Summer Hammad’s words such as “smoke where once was flesh” shows the impact of a militarized act and the human cost of militarization. Her words speak to the dehumanization of the Palestinian people, who are treated even today as expendable. There is a song in Israel very popular these days “Harbu Darbu” which translates from Arabic to war and blows. It’s a war song and is proof of how militarized propaganda has seeped into the every day, unnoticed, normalized, and embraced. The song glorifies military action in Gaza. “Every dog will get its day” it goes referring to the Arab Palestinians.
Mackenzie talks about militarization as an ideology that normalizes military values inside the military and outside it in civilian lives. As a Pakistani I suppose I can relate. Our armed forces are glorified day in and out from school but nothing like we see in Israel. We are taught to see them a benevolent protectors who we can turn to and trust and it is only much later that one develops their own critical thinking. It’s just taught to us as a course called Pakistan studies like one would read about World History or Algebra.
Dowler’s reading which touches on how militarized states prioritize national security and in doing so align themselves rather naturally with traditional gender norms of men as warriors and women as fragile things to be guarded and kept indoors. In Pakistan’s case even in the instance of empowered military women, in the context of peacekeeping, how they deploy these women matters, and they are often deployed just to play a supporting role, to cook or clean much like the expectation they have from civilian women to play supportive roles. This influences the agency of those caught in this dynamic, particularly marginalized groups like women.
Lastly, the Rashid reading touches on he complex dynamics within the Pakistan military, particularly focusing on how notions of superiority, masculinity, and militarization intersect, and the military men’s relationships with civilian life. One significant aspect discussed in the article is the construction of a superior martial race within the Pakistan military. The notion that military men feel superior to civilians implies a hierarchical structure that fosters a sense of superiority, possibly rooted in militaristic ideologies, emphasizing the military’s perceived importance in societal order. The reflection on the odd behavior displayed by military men upon their return home and its dismissal in a sympathetic manner was interesting to me. I have a friend who chose to join the military after experiencing profound disappointment with the pervasive nepotism in civilian life. When I converse with him today, it becomes evident that he has undergone a profound transformation, distancing himself from the essence of civilian existence. In our interactions, he no longer speaks as the individual who was once my friend; rather, his words resonate with the institutional identity forged through his military service. This shift underscores the powerful impact of military life on one’s identity, marking a departure from the person I once knew. It is as though I am talking to the institution not him.
I wonder, are there moments of internal conflict or self-awareness that military personnel experience in reconciling their institutional and personal identities?
For this week’s reading, it was a chance to explore the topic of militarism and militarization.
The first reading I chose by Parashar focused on India, which explored how the country has exhibited post-colonial anxiety. At the forefront the country has prioritized military and defence as a national level that could supersede development. This reading helped me to consider the ‘excessive millenarism” in post-colonial societies which can be further intensified with globalization. One of the central concepts that I found useful from this reading is underscoring the distinctions concepts of militarization and militarism and the ways that they are reliant towards one another. The readings helped me to consider the ways that militarism permeates into and govern the daily lives of people.
The 60-word podcast provided such an incredible context to the war on terror. The events of 9/11 we remembered where we were and what we were doing when it happened, and had the chance to visit the memorial site. I particularly enjoyed hearing from Barbara Lee who when she gave her no vote in Congress resonated as she did what she believed was right even if she was the only one who casted a no vote. Some of the questions that were raised for me were around policies evolving into ambiguity, those which go beyond their original intention, as exemplified by the AUMF. Where should the lines get drawn and what are some ways that transparency be improved in the context of AUMF?
I read the Dowler reading which helped me to consider the ways in which war and masculinities are so intertwined. It helped me further reflect on how militarization is embedded our daily interactions. What I found surprising from this reading is the metaphors related to ‘family’ in promoting national security initiatives. For instance, the War Camp Community Service that helped soldiers spend holidays like Thanksgiving and Christmas in family settings. This provides domestic experiences for the soldiers to carry to the frontline and illustrates the intersection of war, family, and national identity. Moreover, this highlights an effort to intertwine personal and national narratives, underscoring the significance of familial ties in shaping a soldier’s identity.
The reading by Mackenzie et. al some of the key takeaways for me was rethinking human security issues that diverges away from notions of weapons and violence. In this way, human security can encompass areas such as nutrition, health care, birth control, domestic violence. It was interesting to hear the differing perspectives from both the antimilitarist feminists and liberal feminists. What resonated from this reading is that it underscores the prevalence of military sexual violence and issue which is widespread. It encouraged me to consider the ways in which tackling the issue will be key to ensuring women’s equal rights and protection within the workplace, as it represents a significant obstacle that hinders women’s full inclusion within the military that is primarily male-dominated. What I found particularly relatable to prior readings is the importance of incorporating a GBA plus approach in policy which the authors have also highlighted in this reading.
‘When is war’ becomes a question that is hard to answer when facets of the military encroach in the space of the everyday and like the podcast aptly notes ‘when is war’ becomes ‘what is peace’. The podcast shed light into ways the military obfuscated their work through lines of legalese and silences. It is in these manipulated narratives that militarization dismantled families, and created spies within communities. It put to question Suheir Hammad’s siblings service, while the everyday was fractured by the question of who could be an enemy. To me it is quite poignant that the only women interviewed in the 60 words podcast is Congresswoman Barbara Lee who opposed what would become the new engine to the US’s military machine. Changing the military is a gargantuan task and when traversing such hostile tides, I would want to know ways to better practice resilience and perseverance.
Last class, we broached the subject of the roles women play in war and how there is an expectation to their identity during these times. The Mackenzie and Wegner article explores how masculinity has been interwoven with militarism whether it be through language, imagery, or societal expectations. Both my parents served in the military back home in Peru and during the short period of peace in their enlistment my mother was relegated to a desk job. Once the internal conflict lit the country my mother was sent out alongside my dad to serve in the thick of jungle. Her identity completely flipped, at one point she was relegated to “feminine” tasks in the army and when all bodies were needed, she turned into a full-fledged soldier. Her experience is aptly mapped by Dowler’s article where she explains how women’s bodies serve as different military apparatus depending of the occasion. This is encapsulated by my mother’s experience after coming back from deployment and becoming pregnant with my older sister. This event marked an end to her military career and as Dowler would put it, turned her into a body that needed protection.
In the military world where masculinity is expected, motherhood was a concept that was alien to the institution. Which makes one wonder how can an institution hollowed of any identity other than masculinity have room to recognize that its ethos is the problem.
This week’s reading provided insights to militarism, peace and conflict, and feminist approaches. In addition to the required reading, I chose, Laura Shepherd’s “Making war safe for women? National Action Plans and the militarisation of the Women, Peace and Security agenda.”
Firstly, the podcast — wow. I’m both angered and saddened after listening to this. I am angry, because of this demonstrates the type of people and persona that represents the military, who is supposed to ensure safety and peace of the population. When the United States, arguably the most powerful country in the world, has a military that is so deeply masculine and toxic, I question and feel insecure about our safety. While we can critique Barbara Lee’s decision, I was left feeling sorry for her. What a lonely position she must have been in. It’s often difficult when you disagree with something fundamentally but cannot fully fight the system and be somewhat complicit. When I was in Kenya, I felt complicit — I knew it was not my place to speak out, as I was there to do research, but some of the things that we witnessed broke my heart. I feel like I have been reflecting and struggling on this since my return, as I feel the guilt of not fighting against the system, but I question, “what can I do? To what extent would my part do to resolve the issue?”
The readings demonstrate the urgent need to rethink and unlearn some of the narratives in militarization, war, and peace. MacKenzie and Wegner say, “Gender and war are therefore co-constitutive: gender norms drive processes of war and militarisation, and war and militarisation reinforce or challenge existing gender norms.” Then, how do we challenge the gender norms when the system is cyclical? It calls to approach security by acknowledging and examining political phenomena and forms of insecurity, such as sexual violence. Women and other gender-diverse people are disproportionately affected by the war, and during peacemaking. When the homogenous group of men decide what is in our best interest and decide what safety/peace look like, they forget to recognize the different experience faced by different communities. In the Dowler reading, she further states that “women put down their rifles to find that little has been altered and the national goals of women remain eclipsed by the newly defined needs of the sovereign as defined by men.” This connects the two readings, where the needs of the sovereign are defined by men, and national goals of women are eclipsed. To this, WPS agenda needs to effectively challenge the dynamics of militarism and elite-centric security governance. Shepherd criticizes the NAP for its hypocrisy, as it misses the purpose of WPS agenda.
In such a male-dominated field, I wonder how feminist approaches can be effectively incorporated. Despite the increased effort to include more women, this again misses the point. It’s not about the number, but how the system operates. How do we transform the system that operates with masculinity, and instead center love and care to conflicts, wars, and peace?
This week had perspectives offered by Catherine Lutz, Laura J. Shepherd, and Swati Parashar in their respective works on militarism and militarization. What comes out of these readings is a nuanced and interconnected understanding of these complex issues begins to unfold.
Lutz’s exploration of the historical expansion of the military apparatus in the United States prompts contemplation on the pervasive nature of militarization. The idea that militarism transcends traditional boundaries, seeping into the fabric of society, challenges preconceived notions about the clear demarcation between the military and civilian spheres. It raises intriguing questions about how the normalization of military presence in everyday life may influence societal values and norms.The challenge to preconceived notions about the clear demarcation between the military and civilian spheres sparks a cascade of reflections on the nature of citizenship, governance, and the very foundations of societal structures. How does the normalization of military presence in everyday life alter the dynamics of civil-military relations? The interplay between military institutions and the citizenry becomes a crucial focal point, prompting us to question the balance of power, accountability, and the potential erosion of democratic values. Moreover, the influence of militarization on societal values and norms emerges as a particularly intriguing aspect. How does the ubiquity of military symbols, language, and practices shape collective attitudes and beliefs? Lutz’s work encourages us to scrutinize the narratives propagated by a militarized society – the glorification of military prowess, the romanticization of conflict, and the potential suppression of dissenting voices. These reflections compel us to confront the subtle ways in which militarization molds public consciousness and contributes to the shaping of a national identity deeply intertwined with military culture.Turning to Shepherd’s examination of the Women, Peace and Security agenda, a thought-provoking inquiry emerges regarding the unintended consequences of ostensibly progressive policies. The juxtaposition of feminist goals with militarization, as discussed in the context of National Action Plans, invites reflection on the complexities of gender dynamics within militarized spaces. It challenges assumptions about the inherently positive impact of gender-related initiatives within the military, urging a reconsideration of the broader implications for women’s rights in conflict zones. Parashar’s work on postcolonial anxieties and excessive militarism in India deepens the reflection by highlighting the discursive strategies that enable militarization. The emphasis on internal dynamics and historical insecurities prompts consideration of how narratives of threat and vulnerability contribute to the perpetuation of militaristic practices. This prompts a critical examination of the ways in which postcolonial states navigate their security concerns and how these considerations shape national identity.
As these reflections intertwine, a common thread emerges – militarization is not a singular phenomenon but a complex web of interconnected processes. It’s a phenomenon that extends beyond the conventional understanding of warfare, infiltrating societal structures, gender relations, and postcolonial narratives. The insights from these works collectively challenge us to question existing paradigms and rethink our assumptions about the relationships between military institutions, society, and identity. In contemplating the depth and breadth of militarization, the reflection naturally extends to the broader implications for governance, democracy, and the overall well-being of societies. How do militarized societies grapple with issues of civil liberties, dissent, and the role of the state in citizens’ lives? What are the long-term effects of a society accustomed to the omnipresence of the military?
When I think of the military, I think tanks, guns, and some sort of physical army – which very much gives me the ‘ick’. I had never paused to reflect on everyday militarism and how it is embedded in our day-to-day. In our discussion last week, we started to unpack the role of society in upholding and perpetuating ‘invisible violence’, and how war is much more than person-to-person combat; rather, it is so much more and can invade the most intimate parts of a person (i.e. a woman’s womb and dreams). After reading this week’s readings, I believe a similar perspective can be considered when thinking about military and militarization.
If war and violence have been normalized in our lives, so has the perception of military and militarization. Mackenzie and Wegner illustrate how everyday militarism can manifest in North America: wearing poppies on Remembrance Day, commemorating wars, supporting the troops’ campaigns, and even video games (i.e. Call of Duty). This begs the question: if war, violence, and military have been normalized – have the consequences of war/violence been normalized too? (I hesitate to ask that question because we might be witnessing the answer to that question today through the responses of states towards the Israel/Gaza war)
Radio Lab’s podcast made me reflect on how language, specifically in the AUMF, enables and aids in justifying detention, detainment, and surveillance in national and international contexts (using the US as an example). Rozina Ali’s Twitter thread highlighted this through the US’s various racially-targeted detention, detainments, and deportations of Muslim & immigrant men in a post 9/11 US. We then see how society can further contribute to upholding the state’s force through invisible violence (although sometimes this is overt). For example, Suheir Hammad’s poem shared instances of people asking about her brother in the military in the post-9/11 context. Internationally, the Radio Lab podcast unpacks how the language in the AUMF was used to enable violence in Vietnam, Iran, Afghanistan, and many more places that we aren’t even aware of. The AUMF language allows the US state to ‘use force’ (in whatever way the current administration deems fit) to ‘protect’ the US. I thought the concluding question of the podcast was particularly powerful: if we’re fighting while technically not at war with them, what’s the difference between war and peace? What does peace actually look like if we’re always trying to protect ourselves above everything? (Curious for everyone’s thoughts on this!)
The link between gender and the military was interesting for me. I’ve always silently wondered why (it seems like a majority of) men are so invested and interested in WWII, the American Civil War, and basically any form of combat/violence. MacKenzie and Wegner explain that “because [the] association with masculinity adds value in society, and because masculinity has been culturally linked to military activities, militarism is promoted as a ‘value-added’ ideology in many societies” (p.293). As we give militarization and militarism value in our society, we’re subsequently devaluing the lives of those around us – by gender, gender identity, race, religion, ethnicity, etc… I think Suherir’s words summarized it well: “Shit is complicated, but I know who pays”.
Starting on a personal note, as a child my mother did a 2-year secondment as an HR professional at the Canadian Armed Forces Base Toronto at Denison Armouries. I was about 7 when she started, and despite my age. I remember how excited I was to visit her at the base. She walked my brother and I around where we met many people in uniform and saw big weapons simulators used for training. At this time, Canada deployed many troops to Afghanistan including some of my moms’ colleagues. We sent them care packages. I don’t think this is the first time I experienced militarism, but it is a memory I won’t forget. In reflecting on the mandatory readings from this week, as well as Laura Shepherd’s article on National Action Plans (NAPs), I have become overwhelmed thinking about how militarization takes root in the ordinary processes of daily life and are so normalized they are accepted as commonplace. Do I think my mom was trying to enforce the value of military on me at the age of 7? Probably not. But I do think that she, like many of us, is deeply affected by the valorisation of military institutions and approaches, including the hierarchical organisation of social and political life. Can I blame her? It’s literally everywhere.
Not only is it everywhere, its also not that easy to question it. As Jad Abumrad noted in response to the Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001, “it was important [to Bush] that we project unity, that we were all standing together as one.” We are taught not to question militarization because, as MacKenzie and Wegner argue, “male-bodied subjects who conduct [war] are assigned power and prestige socially”. We are taught that the military serves to protect us from the bad, known, and unknown, and to do this, we should be thankful and unified. The moving parts of this game are a lot to wrap my head around. But I found Dowler’s call to Gagen’s argument that “our understanding of the homeland evokes sentiments of the safety of the home and fear of places beyond the nation-state” to be helpful. I think, people who question militarization are often made to feel naïve or stupid for not understanding how dangerous and bad the world would be without military. Or worse, as in Barbara Lee’s case met with accusations of being on the side of the perpetrators of 9/11 and faced the possibility of losing her job—being against her own country. Almost 23 years later, I still find myself hesitating to question the manifestations of militarism in society; “are people going to think I’m a hippie or against the government?” Maybe, but I am hesitating less these days.
In addition to the fear mongering tactics involved in militarization, citizens are subordinated by the military as the military manages ‘the business’ of peace and security and are the ‘experts’ engaging in this business operating comfortably within its parameters. The twitter thread by Rozina Ali demonstrates this in describing the blatant human rights violations against Muslim men following 9/11 and consequently, AUMF. The FBI and CIA, while operating completely out of their mandates, and against the law, were rarely if ever questioned on their actions. This is a direct result of militarism; where security organizations can act as they want to address a ‘perceived threat’, without clear or singular goals or outcomes. As such, we have seen the US and its allies classify anything as aggression, including simply living in the US as a racialized person. This vagueness plays nicely into the personal bias of many people involved in upholding militarization and I wonder if this was intended when drafting the AUMF to be as broad as it was. Was it considered that the perception of these authorities would be dependent on a NYPD officer looking for a tenant in their home, or a US military officer in a prison abroad and carried out however they deem fit in that moment? To move past this, an intersectional approach to war is not the answer, rather, a disassembly of militarism in general where security organizations are not even given the option to perceive their authority in applying violence. I wonder how we as academics can support the demilitarisation of society and facilitate the development of anti-militarist politics of peace in a way that is conducive to change? How can we as individuals and ‘civilians’ counter the century old acceptance of the use of force as a means of peace? Especially when war is a trillion dollar business, is there any way that it can be decentralized in society?
In their exploration of the “continuum” of wars, Mackenzie and Wegner suggest that the impact of militarization goes beyond the rise of “nationalist and militant fundamentalism or the increase in armies and arsenals” and leads to the “reproduction of beliefs and structures that result in inequality, conflict and domination as normal or desirable.” This is seen everywhere, and sadly, is present even in the language used to describe some groups versus others.
This is seen in the selective grief and double standards of framing that militarism, militarization, and (often racist + white supremacist ethnocentrism) create in that they see the deaths of some people as worthy of mourning, but diminish the deaths (and lives) of others. We see this tragically in real time, where media coverage labels Hamas = terrorists, but Israeli Security Forces committing genocide in real time = soldiers; Israeli civilians = victims; Palestinian civilians = casualties.
Suheir Hammad also explores this powerfully when she references grief from 9/11 as a justification for the US’s violent and persistent militarism: “Iraqi children, the dead in Nicaragua, in Rwanda…” and the double standard of vilifying certain “hooded men, holy books, and death” but not including the Bible, the KKK, religious leaders in Residential Schools, or the vilification of white men in other acts of mass violence on US-soil (i.e. McVeigh in Oklahoma). Militarism so powerfully creates a notion of us versus them – and gives us, as Chris Hedges writes in his book War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning, a sense of “meaning” so intoxicating and misguided that we come to believe that some are worthy of vilification and death, but not all – and certainly not those who look like us. Militarism then is not only the direct physical violence of war, but the flow-through of the ideas and ideologies that justify war and its impacts on every.single.part.of.life – and in doing so it builds a “justification” of systemic oppression and exclusion from belonging.
Another theme that emerged throughout the readings + episodes, was the unfair and daunting legacy of 9/11 on the systemic “othering” of Muslim and Arabic peoples in the United States, when their entire identity, from their beliefs to their appearance, has been pushed into harmful categories and stereotypes, and not given space to grieve, grow, or process themselves or to navigate the complexity of their own identities. Hammad writes of her brothers, they are: “Muslim, gentle men, members of the Navy. born in Brooklyn” yet “asked if they know the terrorists” or “what Navy are they in?”. When I listened to the 60 Words, 20 Years version of the Radiolab podcast (that aired in September 2021, as the US was “ending” the war in Afghanistan), I found the reflections of host Sarah Qari about being a young Muslim girl in the US after 9/11 and the immense pressure put on her to “represent Islamic people well” so harrowing. Simply because of her identity, family, and religion, she – a girl in grade 2 – would have to carry an impossible emotional and mental burden for the rest of her life.
Questions:
– How can approaches to post-war recovery or reconstruction (whatever that means in the day of Forever Wars…) include restorative justice for those whose very identity and personhood have faced subtle, direct, and everyday violence (against their person, their body, their future, etc.), though they themselves did not see “battle”?
– Suheir Hammad’s poem ‘First Writing Since’ ends with the poignant juxtaposition of a phrase earlier in the poem: a movement from the vile notion that “you’re either with the terrorists or against them” to a more accurate and cross-boundary invitation that “you’re either with life or against it.” How can we be FOR LIFE in a world rampant with militarization?
These three readings, each offered a nuanced exploration of gender dynamics within militarized contexts, which helped me understand the intersectionality of gender, militarization, and societal structures.
I decided to read the reading posted on the X thread that delved into the post-9/11 era in the United States, highlighting the government’s reliance on informants within Muslim communities. It raised questions about coercion, trust, and the role of citizens in national security. The reading unsettles with its portrayal of the pushing of personal freedoms and privacy, underlining how gender and ethnicity interplay within these dynamics.
This reading was and thread were both very personal to me, as my mom ( a Hijabi women ) was sent to work in the USA 14 days after 9/11 and was confronted to all sorts of racism and islamophobia that got life-threatening at some point. She was denied job opportunities and got a lot of setbacks for a situation that she had nothing to do with all along.
The Gender, Militarization and Sovereignty reading by Lorraine Dowler examines the gendered aspects of militarization and sovereignty. It discusses how women’s bodies and lives are often instrumentalized for nationalistic purposes, and how militarization extends beyond the battlefield into the social and domestic spheres. The paper prompts reflection on the pervasive impact of militarization on everyday life and the often invisible labor of women within militarized societies.
This also resonated deeply with me and thinking of what my grandmother used to tell me about how their bodies were weaponized during the colonial era either as an object of desire from the French and the Spanish or as a tool that can be used to create more soldier to protect the country.
The “Precarious attachments: soldiers and erasures of the feminine in the Pakistan military” focused on the Pakistani military, revealing how the feminine is both essential and erased within the military framework. The concept of “precarious attachments” between soldiers and their female kin is particularly striking, showing how emotional labor is gendered and vital for the sustenance of militaristic institutions. This reading raises questions about the role of gender in sustaining militaristic cultures and the emotional toll on those involved.
Each reading intersects with the theme of gender within militarized and surveillance contexts, demonstrating how women’s roles and emotions are manipulated for broader nationalistic or militaristic goals. These readings collectively raise unsettling insights about the depth of gendered power dynamics in militarized societies.
Reflective Questions:
1. How do these readings challenge or reinforce our understanding of the relationship between gender and militarization in different cultural contexts?
2. In what ways do the concepts of surveillance and militarization intersect with gender to shape societal dynamics and individual experiences?
In my father’s words, “Pakistan does not have an army. The army has Pakistan.” This stark observation effectively captures the military’s overbearing grip on my country—a grip that extends into the very essence of our lives as citizens seemingly forsaken by a system we have little control over.
Raised by parents who were outspoken critics of the military, I, along with many of my fellow Pakistanis, have witnessed a paradoxical surrender of our democratic freedoms to the powers that be. This submission occurs under a facade of democracy that Pakistan projects internationally, albeit one that is far from the reality that is experienced within.
That being said, my life — coming from Pakistan — has been heavily militarized, in a number of ways. From the direct involvement of Pakistan’s military to the repercussions of the U.S. war on terror affecting civilian lives in Waziristan, the shadow of military presence is an omnipresent specter.
This pervasive military ethos is not merely a backdrop but a penetrating force, shaping our existence and demanding our reluctant reverence. As Maria Rashid articulates in ‘Precarious Attachments’, I have also directly observed the gendered dichotomy ingrained in the military culture. A culture that funnels children into cadet colleges, that later strip them of their childhood and indoctrinate them into becoming subservient cogs in a machine that perpetuates and amplifies global violence.
This makes me think about the grand architecture of history and the twisting paths that have led humanity to its present condition. I think of a parallel reality where my homeland, not robbed of her riches, her dignity, and her territories, might have flourished. What would she resemble in an alternate timeline where her potential was allowed to unfurl, unburdened by the shadows of exploitation?
This pervasive culture of conflict, a seemingly inherent trait in human societies, has normalized war-mongering. The insidious acceptance of aggression as a means to an end raises questions about the lessons of history and the values we champion. How did the global narrative come to celebrate the warrior over the peacemaker?
In the 60 Words podcast, Jad Abumrad brings to the forefront some pressing concerns about America’s war on terror. It highlights how, despite President Obama’s speech at the National Defense University, where he spoke of ending this war, there seemed to be an undercurrent suggesting it might just continue under a different name. It’s a clever twist of words and laws that could mean we’re looking at a never-ending cycle of conflict, where the end of one battle is just a setup for the next.
This is what Rozina Ali also talks about in her Twitter thread. Every year on September 11, we remember the lives lost in the Twin Tower attack but we can also never forget the countless innocent lives that have paid the price of a crime that they never committed since that day. The pervasive fear experienced by Muslim immigrant communities, a reality I’ve witnessed firsthand, is a stark reminder of the profound impact of that day’s events on lives around the globe.
When you can’t clearly define who you’re fighting against, and your tactics are just as unclear, it seems like you’re always at war and peace is just a short break before the next round of fighting. This hits home for me personally. My brother, a brown Muslim man from Pakistan, was racially profiled and singled out for ‘not-so-random’ security checks every time he entered the U.S. during his postgrad. Could it be because the idea of an “enemy” has become so broad that it now includes anyone who looks like him?
The narrative that has emerged post-9/11 often frames security as requiring a trade-off with personal freedoms. In many countries, especially those directly involved in the war on terror, there has been an increase in surveillance and a tightening of security measures, often justified by the need to protect national security.
Keeping that in mind, the question that comes up for me is how narratives shaped by the war on terror impact our understanding of freedom and security, both within and beyond the borders of countries directly involved?
Listening to the “60 Words” podcast the political language and rhetoric surrounding the decision to go to war caught my attention. It is interesting to look at how choice of words by politicians shapes public perception and potentially makes people complicit in supporting wars without the full understanding. This is seen in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, when the U.S. was facing a pivotal moment in deciding to go to war. For example, while the president can take decisions to go to war in cases of emergency like the 9/11, President Bush’s tactic to seek congressional approval for war reflects a strategic move to project unity and garner widespread support. Another example, is the choice of words in the AUMF, where instead of explicitly using the term “declaring war” they used “authorization to use force” to positively frame the military actions. I think Barbara Lee’s stance stands out – I can only imagine how hard it was for A WOMAN OF COLOR, to be the only one to vote for NO. But this serves as a reminder that individuals can choose not to become complicit in actions that conflict with their principles. Her decision, despite challenges and emotional complexities, exemplifies the courage to stand for what is right. Listening to the speech where Bush said, “we are going to war to prevent future acts of international terrorism,” I started reflecting on the logic notion of achieving peace through conflict and whether there are circumstances where resorting to armed conflict might be morally defensible?
Suheir Hammad’s poetry from 12 years ago sadly resonates with today’s reality in Gaza. In her beautifully poignant words, she eloquently pointed out the double standard that comes with war, where terrorism and killings done by white men has not been called out. Yet, all Arabs became enemies and suspects, often facing violence after 9/11. Her poetry also portrays the concept of “othering” using her lived experience and the experiences of many Muslims and Arabs. For example, the shocking questions she was asked if she knew the hijackers and questioned her brother being in the Navy, just because they are Arabs. Events like 9/11 or the current Israel are examples of how can wars can deepen divisions, fuel hatred, and contribute to the rise of Islamophobia across the globe. Many individuals unknowingly became complicit in wars without being directly involved in the military or on the battlefield. For example, “the social media war” today. I think it is the best case of militarization- Many people are at war on their phone and in their homes. This makes me question the meaning of peace!
The two readings illustrate the vulnerability of women within the military context, showing the link between gender, security, and militarism. The authors explain how entrenched gender norms and biases influence traditional ideas, particularly affecting women in the military. They emphasize the critical need to recognize and scrutinize political phenomena, such as sexual violence, to gain a comprehensive understanding of this security concerns. They underscore the disproportionate impact on women and other gender-diverse individuals during both wartime and peacemaking efforts. The authors reveal a link between masculinity, militarism, and the endorsement of aggressiveness in the military force. This connection highlights the societal devaluation of traits associated with women, portraying them as less important. It’s truly unjust that even the women at the forefront, courageously risking their lives, cannot receive the protection they deserve!
Congresswoman Barbara Lee’s speech was short but powerful as she talks about the consequences of militarization. The firm belief that strong military action prevents future terrorism, its very premise is wrong. We see time and again that the opposite is true, with the creation of the Taliban with the US in Afghanistan, then Iraq, then Libya, then Yemen, Syria, Palestine, and even in the case of Balochistan in Pakistan. We see that people do not like the idea of being afraid in their own lands and how marginalization leads to radicalization, how their is a thin line between radicalization and gradual “level-up” to violent streams of this. Miss Lee’s plea to stop and reflect so that they do not become the very evil they deplore raises questions about the ethics surrounding militarization. I saw the film Israelism featuring Simone Zimmerman tonight and Gabor Mate (as speaker), it was centered on the schooling or rather indoctrination of Jewish children into becoming Israeli, and teaching them the two were inseparable. The film showed how children and youth are misled to believe that for them to be safe, the Palestinians have to be unsafe, and the only way to do so is increased securitization of Israel and intimidation of the Palestinians. Gabor said sometimes all it takes is a seed, to plant a seed. It got me thinking that a seed, a voice of doubt to either lead us to the truth or to falsehood, and that is very scary to me.
What Rozina Ali said in her thread is not news to me or any desi/Muslim/Middle Eastern person. There is a sort of anger actually because those of us who are sane and luckily that is the most of us, do mourn 9/11 and the sufferings of those in the West. But we cannot comprehend how our pain post 9/11 is not reciprocated. I always get vetted crossing into the States even with a Canadian passport and I was a toddler at the time 9/11 even happened. Our 9/11 is 24/7 as harsh as that may sound, the witch hunt never stopped. The men face the worst of it.
Summer Hammad’s words such as “smoke where once was flesh” shows the impact of a militarized act and the human cost of militarization. Her words speak to the dehumanization of the Palestinian people, who are treated even today as expendable. There is a song in Israel very popular these days “Harbu Darbu” which translates from Arabic to war and blows. It’s a war song and is proof of how militarized propaganda has seeped into the every day, unnoticed, normalized, and embraced. The song glorifies military action in Gaza. “Every dog will get its day” it goes referring to the Arab Palestinians.
Mackenzie talks about militarization as an ideology that normalizes military values inside the military and outside it in civilian lives. As a Pakistani I suppose I can relate. Our armed forces are glorified day in and out from school but nothing like we see in Israel. We are taught to see them a benevolent protectors who we can turn to and trust and it is only much later that one develops their own critical thinking. It’s just taught to us as a course called Pakistan studies like one would read about World History or Algebra.
Dowler’s reading which touches on how militarized states prioritize national security and in doing so align themselves rather naturally with traditional gender norms of men as warriors and women as fragile things to be guarded and kept indoors. In Pakistan’s case even in the instance of empowered military women, in the context of peacekeeping, how they deploy these women matters, and they are often deployed just to play a supporting role, to cook or clean much like the expectation they have from civilian women to play supportive roles. This influences the agency of those caught in this dynamic, particularly marginalized groups like women.
Lastly, the Rashid reading touches on he complex dynamics within the Pakistan military, particularly focusing on how notions of superiority, masculinity, and militarization intersect, and the military men’s relationships with civilian life. One significant aspect discussed in the article is the construction of a superior martial race within the Pakistan military. The notion that military men feel superior to civilians implies a hierarchical structure that fosters a sense of superiority, possibly rooted in militaristic ideologies, emphasizing the military’s perceived importance in societal order. The reflection on the odd behavior displayed by military men upon their return home and its dismissal in a sympathetic manner was interesting to me. I have a friend who chose to join the military after experiencing profound disappointment with the pervasive nepotism in civilian life. When I converse with him today, it becomes evident that he has undergone a profound transformation, distancing himself from the essence of civilian existence. In our interactions, he no longer speaks as the individual who was once my friend; rather, his words resonate with the institutional identity forged through his military service. This shift underscores the powerful impact of military life on one’s identity, marking a departure from the person I once knew. It is as though I am talking to the institution not him.
I wonder, are there moments of internal conflict or self-awareness that military personnel experience in reconciling their institutional and personal identities?
For this week’s reading, it was a chance to explore the topic of militarism and militarization.
The first reading I chose by Parashar focused on India, which explored how the country has exhibited post-colonial anxiety. At the forefront the country has prioritized military and defence as a national level that could supersede development. This reading helped me to consider the ‘excessive millenarism” in post-colonial societies which can be further intensified with globalization. One of the central concepts that I found useful from this reading is underscoring the distinctions concepts of militarization and militarism and the ways that they are reliant towards one another. The readings helped me to consider the ways that militarism permeates into and govern the daily lives of people.
The 60-word podcast provided such an incredible context to the war on terror. The events of 9/11 we remembered where we were and what we were doing when it happened, and had the chance to visit the memorial site. I particularly enjoyed hearing from Barbara Lee who when she gave her no vote in Congress resonated as she did what she believed was right even if she was the only one who casted a no vote. Some of the questions that were raised for me were around policies evolving into ambiguity, those which go beyond their original intention, as exemplified by the AUMF. Where should the lines get drawn and what are some ways that transparency be improved in the context of AUMF?
I read the Dowler reading which helped me to consider the ways in which war and masculinities are so intertwined. It helped me further reflect on how militarization is embedded our daily interactions. What I found surprising from this reading is the metaphors related to ‘family’ in promoting national security initiatives. For instance, the War Camp Community Service that helped soldiers spend holidays like Thanksgiving and Christmas in family settings. This provides domestic experiences for the soldiers to carry to the frontline and illustrates the intersection of war, family, and national identity. Moreover, this highlights an effort to intertwine personal and national narratives, underscoring the significance of familial ties in shaping a soldier’s identity.
The reading by Mackenzie et. al some of the key takeaways for me was rethinking human security issues that diverges away from notions of weapons and violence. In this way, human security can encompass areas such as nutrition, health care, birth control, domestic violence. It was interesting to hear the differing perspectives from both the antimilitarist feminists and liberal feminists. What resonated from this reading is that it underscores the prevalence of military sexual violence and issue which is widespread. It encouraged me to consider the ways in which tackling the issue will be key to ensuring women’s equal rights and protection within the workplace, as it represents a significant obstacle that hinders women’s full inclusion within the military that is primarily male-dominated. What I found particularly relatable to prior readings is the importance of incorporating a GBA plus approach in policy which the authors have also highlighted in this reading.
‘When is war’ becomes a question that is hard to answer when facets of the military encroach in the space of the everyday and like the podcast aptly notes ‘when is war’ becomes ‘what is peace’. The podcast shed light into ways the military obfuscated their work through lines of legalese and silences. It is in these manipulated narratives that militarization dismantled families, and created spies within communities. It put to question Suheir Hammad’s siblings service, while the everyday was fractured by the question of who could be an enemy. To me it is quite poignant that the only women interviewed in the 60 words podcast is Congresswoman Barbara Lee who opposed what would become the new engine to the US’s military machine. Changing the military is a gargantuan task and when traversing such hostile tides, I would want to know ways to better practice resilience and perseverance.
Last class, we broached the subject of the roles women play in war and how there is an expectation to their identity during these times. The Mackenzie and Wegner article explores how masculinity has been interwoven with militarism whether it be through language, imagery, or societal expectations. Both my parents served in the military back home in Peru and during the short period of peace in their enlistment my mother was relegated to a desk job. Once the internal conflict lit the country my mother was sent out alongside my dad to serve in the thick of jungle. Her identity completely flipped, at one point she was relegated to “feminine” tasks in the army and when all bodies were needed, she turned into a full-fledged soldier. Her experience is aptly mapped by Dowler’s article where she explains how women’s bodies serve as different military apparatus depending of the occasion. This is encapsulated by my mother’s experience after coming back from deployment and becoming pregnant with my older sister. This event marked an end to her military career and as Dowler would put it, turned her into a body that needed protection.
In the military world where masculinity is expected, motherhood was a concept that was alien to the institution. Which makes one wonder how can an institution hollowed of any identity other than masculinity have room to recognize that its ethos is the problem.