![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Right before Iran detained the fifteen British soldiers in March, and
before Iran president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pointed out Faye Turney was a
mother and suggested the West didn't respect family values and managed
to whip up the debate about wimmin in the military in the Western
media, the role of wimmin in the military was being discussed in the
British media.(1)(2) It would seem Ahmadinejad was more aware of the
situation of public opinion in the Western imperialist countries,
including Australia, than so-called radicals in these countries
attacking Islamic countries over sexism as if pandering to anti-Islamic
chauvinism would end the Iraq War, only to generate momentum among the
white rabble for a new imperialist government in 2008 and more
chauvinism against and exploitation of Third World nations. The deaths
of the female imperialist soldiers in Basra, Iraq, in early April, the
day after Ahmadinejad's speech, at the hands of Iraqis also helped stir
up contradictions in the West over sending females to war. U.$. and
British female soldiers already receive some training for combat and
are often armed while on duty even when they're not in combat.
Ahmadinejad and the Iraqi activity in effect divided the exploiters
over the question of sending females to war or at least to "front-line"
or "direct" combat. The question is relatively timeless and could
affect how the imperialists carry out any future war and what would
happen if more female imperialist soldiers started coming home dead or
injured. If there is another occurrence like the two British female
soldiers dying in Basra, the effects of Ahmadinejad's speech on April 4
will resonate. The female soldier issue is a permanent wedge that has
been driven into conservatives' backing for war. As Ahmadinejad's
statement recognized, "family values" conservatives are going to think
twice before supporting a war exposing females to harm and capture.
Thus, some opposition to war is likely to come from those opposed to
liberalism in the military, as well as white females worried about
sexual situations involving the military.(3) As Janet Napolitano type
fears about sexual abuse in the military converge with dissatisfaction
with the amerikan body count, there is a basis for fewer people to get
involved in pseudo-feminist warmongering against Islamic nations. On
the other hand, as Ralph Nader, another left-wing white nationalist,
illustrates, calls to investigate abuse of females in the u.$. military
can easily turn into supporting career opportunities for females in the
military and the Pentagon.(4) What's needed is opposition to
militarism, not law enforcement to back female participation in
imperialist militaries.
Compared with male soldiers, dozens of, but relatively few, female
imperialist soldiers have died in Iraq. The attention they're getting
is indicative of the problems imperialism faces, but the amount of
media coverage they're getting may be low even given their small
numbers. The situation varies by country, with females less integrated
in some imperialist country militaries than others and this making
increased integration more new and controversial. However, the
bourgeois debate about females in the imperialist military has
long-term potential for exploiter division, especially as the
imperialists become overstretched militarily and the imperialist nation
female-biology adults become more and more men-like and more amenable
to taking part in combat. By contrast, bashing Iran, Afghanistan or
even Russia just to rally the white labor aristocracy and middle-class
mob for an exploiter united front against a government, already
unpopular because of Third World resistance, is going to have long-term
effects that support militarism.
In Israel, the debate on females in combat has been renewed amid
interest in making more areas of the Israeli military co-ed. What
passes for feminism in an Associated Press article is the idea of
giving females more opportunities in Israeli combat units.(5) Having a
gender-integrated military is also seen as giving females opportunities
in the larger society. In Israel, some of the concerns about females in
the military are similar to those in the united $tates.
Interestingly, the University of Haifa did a study reportedly
showing that Israeli females become more hawkish during military
service.(6)(7) This alone is reason enough to oppose female military service
in MIM's book. As even pro-central government federalists such as Alexander
Hamilton recognized, war establishments create people with war
establishment views. We are not about growing the military and its influence
in imperialist countries.
Regardless of female/male biological differences,
effective female-only units don't seem out of the question. If female
military participation actually created problems for imperialism, that
might not be a bad thing, but this doesn't seem to be the case. It
might just be a problem for conservatives with unrealistic ideas about
putting wimmin back in the home. Really creating a problem
that benefits the international proletariat would be
cutting the size of the military.
Attitudes toward female/male equality and gender roles are problems
for imperialism insofar as it needs females in the military and combat.
Religious thinking can be inconvenient for imperialism, but there is
Liberalism on both sides of the debate, even among those opposing
female participation. On the one hand, people are saying female
inclusion in the military (whether integrated with or segregated from
males) is a mark of civilization, others, that it is the mark of an
uncivilized society, that it belongs almost in the same category as
child soldiers.(8) In this context, liberalism is the idea that there
can be equality without power struggle. At the most, it can only be
equality for some, not all of a group. Saying that the existence of female soldiers is
uncivilized is liberalism, too, of an international form, because it
ignores the relative economic and political disadvantages of Third
World nations.
Ultimately, First World nations have a population disadvantage,
which is going to be a short-term motivation female imperialist military
service and a long-term motivation against it. (Although, Germany didn't draft females even when it was being
defeated by the proletariat during World War Two. Thousands of wimmin
served in the Soviet Red Army in combat.) It also raises the
possibility of First World nations' making female participation in
combat illegal internationally, but this seems unlikely given the
degree of integration that already exists in different imperialist
militaries and the blurred distinction between combat and non-combat
soldiers. Females can bomb Third World people from the sky in
imperialist militaries; the question about females in the military
lately is usually in the context of mixed-sex situations and ground
combat.
Mao teaches us that reality is dialectically interconnected and messy, uneven. There is no even leap into communism right now, so the idea of supporting females in the military in all contexts is reactionary. The issue of females in the military is secondary to the oppression of nations by imperialism. Therefore, Iran is right to make the West pay the maximum once the West sends the female soldiers into combat. Grasping the principal contradiction means supporting different policies in different contexts. We support the Iranians on the female soldiers question and we also support the U.$. universities that ban military organizations entirely for not accepting gays without discrimination. Depriving the imperialist military is our consistent guiding principle.
Many organizations are unwilling to take stands on such issues, because they speak vaguely about alleviating class, gender and national oppression, but today even Liberalism has created post-modernist identity politics that is no threat to oppression. Vagueness always benefits the bourgeoisie in its efforts to bind the exploited to the exploiters and the oppressed to the oppressors. To distinguish ourselves from Liberals and others, it is necessary to specify the path out of oppression and make the judgment calls that can make an organization unpopular. Although MIM does this more than any other organization, it is read by more people than any party in North America calling itself "Marxist." So people enjoy reading about detailed if unpopular paths out of oppression. Vagueness from so-called Marxists is only opportunism.
Notes:
1.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_headline=agony-as-bomb-kills-brit-women-soldiers--&method=full&objectid=18866382&siteid=66633-name_page.html
2. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/07/wiraq307.xml
3. http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/180418
4. http://www.counterpunch.org/nader04162007.html
5. http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/international/news/20070429p2g00m0in010000c.html
"Says feminist Chazan: "People ask me, do you really want your daughter
to serve in a unit like that? Well, I want my daughter to be able to
decide, just like your son.""
6. http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/11250.htm
"Male IDF soldiers who serve in combat units become less martial
and more inclined to seek compromises on security matters over the
duration of their service.
"Conversely, female soldiers become more hawkish and more right-wing
during their service, according to the study, conducted by Haifa
University's School for Political Science."
7. http://www.upi.com/International_Intelligence/Briefing/2007/04/25/combat_moderates_israeli_soldiers_views/
8. Susan Martinuk, "Make combat men-only," Ottawa Citizen, 2003 May 7, p. A19.
"Each woman is now admired for her selfless courage and sacrifice.
But their stories also make us wonder why a progressive, civilized
country would send women to fight against one of the world's most
oppressive, cruel regimes. Has political correctness triumphed common
sense?"
9. Nick Papps, "Should women soldiers be dying in Iraq," Sunday Telegraph, 2005 July 10, World / p. 44.
"It's a view shared by Elaine Donnelly of the Centre for Military
Readiness who says it's uncivilised to send women into battle."
"But with recruiting numbers plummeting in the US, there may be one
more compelling reason women may soon be allowed in combat -- the US
army won't have the numbers to keep them out of harm's way."