| |  Women are not strangers to war. Most often they have been victims along with other civilians. In Western countries, they have frequently been civilian employees of “defence” or “war” departments, most conspicuously as nurses caring for injured combatants. Many have died in bombardments and a significant number of Canadian nurses drowned during World War I when ships on which they were crossing the Atlantic were sunk by German U-Boats. However, aside from these exceptions, it has been men who provided the conditions for wars to take place, and then fought in them, winning or losing, being killed and injured in terrible numbers. Women were expected to carry on as well as they could often without their husbands, to comfort the bereaved – including their own children – or to look after those whose capacities were diminished due to injuries or psychological traumas.
As we have seen recently, war is not, as it should be, universally despised as the final stage of human aggression and as the proof of the failure of resolving problems with reason. There is a large literature on the horrors of war and there are many survivors of battles fought even as long ago as World War II. Unfortunately the “spirit” of Hitler, the Japanese militarist, and Stalin lives on. We can not reasonably close down the military colleges at Annapolis, West Point, and Kingston (Ontario) without assurances that military strength will not be required to defend our countries or to provide similar powers for a future world government. Today we can only glimpse a possibility of such government in the United Nations where the institutional instrument for justice and order, the Security Council, is badly split. But these grounds, of defence against real rather than speculative danger and our share of collective security, should be the only reasons for engaging in military action. People who study war have concluded that WWII – although it left Eastern Europe under a dictatorship for many years – was the last “Just War.” Two large and militarily strong nations openly proclaimed their intention to conquer the world and to install their system of dictatorial government in the conquered territories. To make sure everyone understood, they declared war on other nations and went to war against them. Were those who finally subdued the aggressors “heroes” to whom all of us owe incalculable debts of gratitude? Yes, absolutely! How do things look fifty years later? Entering the country under false pretenses, a group of fanatical terrorists attacked the United States, commandeering four civilian planes of which two demolished the World Trade Center skyscrapers in New York City and one damaged part of the Pentagon. In the process the terrorists killed themselves along with all the passengers and crews of the aircraft and many more who worked in the skyscrapers or were among those who rescued or attempted to rescue them. The total death toll was about 3000. As a result of this attack, President Bush declared “ A War on Terror” and as part of this “War,” launched an invasion of Iraq. There has never been any connection between the murderers who attacked the U.S.A. and Saddam Hussein, the dictator who ruled Iraq, in spite of the most strenuous efforts on the part of the White House to find such a link. The official reason justifying an attack on Iraq was that Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction which posed an immediate threat to America and its closest allies. When no weapons of mass destruction could be found, the purpose of the war changed to one of ridding Iraq of a cruel dictator, and advancing the cause of democracy in the Near East. Strangely, during the bloody Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988) which was started by Saddam Hussein, Henry Kissinger who had been Secretary of State and National Security advisor when asked how the U.S. viewed the conflict said: “We are officially neutral, but we lean towards Iraq.” As I write, the quick military victory in Iraq has been followed by an occupation which has not been able to bring public order to Iraq but instead has developed into a low-level civil war between Sunni-supported insurgents and the majority Shiite population. Full oil production has not been possible and the Iraqi infrastructure is in shambles. Civilian and military casualties mount every day. Is this a “Just War”? Definitely not! It is a throwback to former times when war was considered a natural extension of foreign policy. Men and women who chose a military career for a variety of reasons, should not be placed in the kind of situation where they are harmed or killed as part of hostilities orchestrated by civilian leaders who are ignorant of the problems presented by other cultures, and who could be fairly condemned as “cowboys.” I am not suggesting that persons in the military should have their safety guaranteed or that the military services should be “democratized,” but members of the Armed Forces should be able to trust that their civilian superiors do not engage in “wars of choice” in accordance with shifting political fashions. So far 55 American women have died in the Iraq war. Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan is part of a NATO peacekeeping force and was originally not considered a military operation. However, the resurgent Talibans have inflicted some casualties –including deaths – on the Canadian military. One woman, a captain, was killed. The origins of the Iraq and Afghanistan operations are different and the scale, even taking into account the fact that Canada has only one tenth the population of the U.S.A., is very much smaller. While women have the “right” to go into battle, this right should not be exercised. Because it is still unusual, the presence of women in combat in Iraq can be seen as an endorsement of a tragic mistake. A number of fine-thinking students of women in Western societies have come to the conclusion that women in general (but not every woman, and not all women) have special insights in a number of areas. Perhaps it is time to listen to this “Other Voice” before we get into another war for the noble causes which often turn out less noble only a short time later. | | |
