1

Militarization and the Globalization of War

Capitalism, Imperialism and Conflict

Rubina Saigol

To understand the phenomenon of global militarization and ceaseless wars, it is

imperative to grasp the political, economic and social context within which militarism

and war have become the dominant structures and hegemonic ideas to an unprecedented

degree. The hegemony of militarist thinking and practices at the global level is

inextricably tied to the development of late capitalism and its inherent tendency toward

imperialism. Capitalism, and the consequent colonization of large parts of the globe, has

produced new ideologies and practices that have dismantled accepted moral, legal and

political norms, thereby creating a world in which the human rights regime has witnessed

steady erosion. The overriding emphasis of states and governments on creating men and

women who acquiesce in the project of war, militarism and endless expansion, has

restructured new masculinities and femininities, forged to uphold the project of the nation

and state as ‘good and patriotic’ citizens, and able to defend the physical and ideological

boundaries of states.

This paper is divided into four sections. The first section explores the myth that we live

in a post-colonial or post-imperial world. The second section addresses the issue of the

massive worldwide defence spending to sustain permanent war and colonization. The

third section outlines some of the features of the states of exception that have emerged as

a result of the diminution of the rights and rules governing national and international law.

In the fourth and last section an attempt is made to understand the complex and myriad
 2

forms of masculinities and femininities that arise in response to the dominant military

paradigm that organizes social existence.

Myth of the Post-Colonial World

It has become commonplace to argue that on account of the post-war de-colonization in

the decade following the second world war, a group of independence states called the

‘Third World’ appeared in Asia, Africa and Latin America. The independence achieved

by so-called post-colonial states was illusory as their native economies and societies had

been devastated through centuries of colonial exploitation. Colonialism had merely

transformed itself into forms that were more subtle and simultaneously less expensive.

The colonial mode of production was maintained by two means: 1) power was

transferred, not to the formerly colonized people but to the modernized and educated elite

classes that colonial rule had created; and 2) control over the resources of the formerly

colonized was re-established and exerted through debt traps and the Bretton Woods

Institutions (IMF and World Bank).

The elite ruling classes of former colonies, seduced by the capitalist model of

development, borrowed heavily from international financial institutions in an effort to

construct a world that resembled the developed countries of the North. However, a large

part of the loans was either wasted on useless projects or misappropriated through

rampant corruption and mismanagement. As a result, when countries were unable to

return the loans, their policies and programs came to be stringently controlled by the IMF

and World Bank, thereby re-establishing the colonial relation while maintaining the

useful illusion of independence. The re-colonization through economic coercion was less

costly for the war-torn advanced capitalist economies and served to ensure that there was
 3

a steady transfer of capital from the developing to the developed countries in the form of

debt-servicing. This making and unmaking of the ‘Third World’ was a neo-colonial

method that ensured capital accumulation in rich countries while impoverishing the

developing ones (Escobar, 1995).

Re-colonization through economic means did not require direct military intervention but

the threat of such an intervention helped maintain the control of rich Northern economies

over poor and powerless ones. However, this does not mean that direct military

intervention was eschewed. When natural resources needed to be captured for the oil-

guzzling advanced capitalist economies, wars of occupation did occur as is evident from

the American incursion in Vietnam. Nevertheless, the Cold War ensured that there was a

balance of power and terror so that a military adventure by one country could potentially

trigger a retaliatory action by another.

This balance of power was destroyed at the end of the Cold War allowing the US, as the

sole remaining superpower, to capture the world’s dwindling oil and gas resources for its

energy-hungry economy. The dawn of the 21st century saw the rise of the fierce new

world of war, occupation and mass genocide in pursuit of oil and gas reserves in West

and Central Asia. Afghanistan, the gateway to Central Asia, and Iraq, the oil-rich West

Asian state, were colonized by a coalition of rich and powerful countries. The occupation

of these two countries was followed by a steady spate of threats to Iran, Pakistan, Yemen

and Sudan, some of which are rich in natural resources and others, like Pakistan, are

energy corridors being located next to Afghanistan and Iran. War is not only politics by

other means it is also business by other means. The invasion and capture of Afghanistan,

and the overwhelming focus on Pakistan’s province of Balochistan, is based on their

 4

strategic location in relation to the oil and gas reserves of Central Asia and Iran. The

impending attack on Yemen and/or Iran is also to secure vital oil and gas reserves in a

world faced with depleting energy resources.1

The global War on Terror is, therefore, only the latest ‘mask of conquest’, the newest

cover for essentially imperial pursuits. In every century, colonization and occupation of

foreign lands in search of raw materials and markets, has been masked by an ideology

designed to justify the conquest and provide a moral cover for an enterprise that is purely

based on economic gain (Viswanathan, 1989). In the nineteenth century, the justification

provided for the rapacious exploitation of Asia and Africa by Europeans was civilizing

the natives, bringing Christianity, modernity and progress to a savage population that

needed to be corrected and improved. The ‘other’ to be subjugated in this noble purpose

was the savage and barbarian native of conquered lands.

The White Man’s Burden in the twentieth century shifted as a result of secularization and

the rise of democratic ideology in the colonizing countries. In the twentieth century, the

new ideology used for legitimizing the colonial enterprise was that the advanced

capitalist countries were bringing freedom and democracy to the world that had not tasted

the fruits of freedom. In this discourse, the illusory freedom and democracy of Western

and Northern countries was juxtaposed to the totalitarian and closed societies of the

Eastern Block and communist countries. The demonized ‘other’ in this rhetoric was the

hapless citizen of communist and socialist states which allegedly offered no freedom and

1
Pepe Escobar, ‘Pipelinistan goes Af-Pak’ . Central Asia, May 14, 2009.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/KE14Ag01.html Also see Escobar’s ‘Balochistan is the
ultimate prize’. South Asia, May 9, 2009. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KE09Df03.html;
also see ‘Piplinistan goes Iran’, and ‘Empire Reloaded’, Middle East, Jan 13, 2010
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LA13Ak04.html
 5

democracy. This time it was not Christianity that had to be delivered but democracy,

freedom and the pleasures of capitalist consumption.

In the 21st century the discourse shifted once again and this time the moral global powers

are fighting to eradicate terrorism and the ‘enemy/other’ is the terrorist and religious

extremist. The world has to be attacked, conquered, pillaged and destroyed to save

people, in particular women, from the savage and barbarian terrorist in his many

manifestations of Taliban and Al-Qaida. Constructed in terms very similar to the savage

and barbarian of the nineteenth century who had to be modernized, improved and

Christianized, the terrorist and extremist of the 21st century shares many of the

characteristics of the earlier savage. He lives in caves, sequestered in inhospitable and

uninhabitable terrain, and wears a frightening beard, dirty clothes and incarcerates

women while unleashing unbridled violence upon them. He is not modern, civilized or

cultured and needs to be eliminated if beyond correction. The War on Terror, ostensibly

designed to eliminate this new menace (created in the first place through earlier imperial

intervention), is a bid for the vast oil and gas reserves of Central Asia, that is, it is the

newest imperial enterprise.

In every century then, colonization is covered up with a new mask that creates a moral

justification for mass murder and vast crimes against humanity. In each case, the

inhumanity and savagery of the colonizing power is cloaked behind the moral rhetoric of

the upright and noble conqueror (Viswanathan, 1989). The genocide in Iraq and

Afghanistan, as indeed in the Gaza Strip, is hidden from view through endless campaigns

in global corporate media depicting the murderous and savage terrorist as the other of

humanity in need of elimination, while the murdering coalition armies are portrayed as
 6

saviors of humanity, as liberators of women and as harbingers of freedom and

democracy. The corporate media, especially in North America, acts as an adjunct of the

corporate military machine which controls and dominates politics in that country. The

idea that we live in a post-colonial, post-imperial world is a myth at best and a cruel joke

at worst.

Capitalism, Imperialism and Permanent War

It is not possible to imagine, much less create, a post-imperial world so long as capitalism

remains the dominant ideological and structural form that organizes social existence.

Capitalism, by definition, requires expansion. It needs raw materials and ever-increasing

markets because of its tendency toward overproduction. It cannot realize profits unless it

creates an ever-growing army of consumers, for the circle of production, distribution and

consumption cannot be completed without expanding markets even beyond national

borders. Militarism is, therefore, a necessary corollary of capitalism. Capitalism cannot

maintain its dominance or ensure its expansion without military power to buttress its

holdings at home and abroad, and ensure a steady supply of labor, raw materials and

consumers.

Defining imperialism as a special stage in the development of capitalism, Vladimir Lenin

argued that capitalism generates an intense struggle for the incessant division and re-

division of the world since ‘European capital can maintain its domination only by

continually increasing its military forces’ (Lenin, 1999). In the monopoly stage of

capitalism, asserts Lenin, ‘the division of the world is the transition from a colonial

policy which has extended without hindrance to territories unseized by any capitalist

power, to a colonial policy of monopolist possession of the territory of the world, which
 7

has been completely divided up.’ The compulsion to seize territory and protect it against

other imperial countries provokes intense rivalry between competing imperial powers

leading to intensified militarization and war. Hence Lenin asks the question:

What means other than war could there be under capitalism to overcome the
disparity between the development of productive forces and the accumulation of
capital on the one side, and the division of colonies and spheres of influence for
finance capital on the other?

Lenin regards peace as an interregnum between wars necessary for capitalism. As he

explains:

“Ultra-imperialist” alliances, no matter what form they may assume, whether of one
imperialist coalition against another, or of a general alliance embracing all the imperialist
powers, are inevitably nothing more than a “truce” in periods between wars. Peaceful
alliances prepare the ground for wars, and in their turn grow out of wars; the one
conditions the other, producing alternating forms of peaceful and non-peaceful struggle
on one and the same basis of imperialist connections and relations within world
economics and world politics.

There are tendencies towards competition and rivalry, as well as co-operation and

alliance-building between and among the dominant imperial powers. While the NATO

and Warsaw groupings represented rival alliances, competition over resources, especially

oil, has been observed within the NATO alliance countries, for example, between France

and the US over Iraqi and Central Asian oil. In contemporary times, Russia, China,

France, Britain and the US, and to a lesser extent India and Brazil, are all in the race for

Central and West Asian energy resources. Times of relative peace are temporary

interruptions between wars over pipelines and access to lucrative energy routes and

riches.

The maintenance of colonies and control over energy corridors, routes and riches requires

a condition of permanent war and constant preparedness. Rich and poor countries alike,

therefore, invest heavily in maintaining large, standing armies as well as the latest arsenal
 8

of lethal weapons for the protection and enhancement of their routes and colonies.

Armaments have thus become the most sought after and valued possession in the

contemporary struggle over land and energy resources. States have become armed

garrisons, their borders surrounded by heavy troop deployments and the troops armed

with the most terrifying death-machines man could imagine.

The defence expenditures of colonizing states, as well as those locked in a debilitating

arms race with a rival state, have become astronomical. Between 2003 and 2005 the US

spent $450 billion on the military, followed by China, Russia, Japan, UK, France and

Germany all of whom spent less than $112.5 billion. 2 After the September 11, 2001

attacks and the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, global military spending surged by 45

per cent in the previous decade to an all-time high of $1.45 trillion in 2008.3 The US

accounts for 41.5 per cent of the total expenditures and close to 70 per cent control of the

global market for arms exports. The most rapid area of growth is represented by the fast-

growing economies of the developing world. According to the Stockholm International

Peace Research Institute, a look at defence expenditures by region reveals that of the total

global military spending amounting to approximately $1226 billion, the Americas

account for around $603 billion followed by Europe ($320 billion), Middle East ($75.6

billion), Asia and Oceania ($206 billion) and Africa ($20.4 billion).4

Over time, military budgets are increasing at phenomenal rates. In 2010 the officially

announced US budget for the Pentagon amounts to $636 billion. The Congress has

appropriated an additional $13.8 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The

2
Circa. ‘Global Military Spending’. http://www.flickr.com/photos/kielbryant/118020322/in/set-
72057594137096110/
3
Jonathan Ratner, ‘Global Military and Defence Sector Set to Grow’. February 11, 2010.
4
Jorn Madslien, ‘’In graphs: Arming the World’. Business Reporter, BBC News. 14 June 2009. Based on
estimates by Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).
 9

National Priorities Project estimates that for this fiscal year, $64.5 billion is directed to

Iraq and $72.3 billion to Afghanistan.5 These new appropriations bring total war-related

spending for Iraq to $747.3 billion and for Afghanistan to $299 billion, with total war

costs of $1.05 trillion.6 These costs do not include the cost of the surge of 30,000 troops

in Afghanistan which is likely to be an outlay of another $30 billion. They do not include

the secret and hidden costs of war incurred by the CIA and private defence contractors

for clandestine operations.

The staggering costs of the wars ensure astronomical profits for the defence and defence-

related industries. According to a report by SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace

Research Institute), the hundred leading defence manufacturers sold arms worth

$347billion during 2007. Since 2002, the value of the top one hundred arms sales has

increased by 37 per cent in real terms. Some of the leading companies that make huge

profits from armament sales include Boeing, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, BAE

Systems, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Thales, L-3 Communications and EADS. Some

companies supply cutting-edge military products designed for unconventional warfare

and terrorist threats.7 These include satellite imagery firms like DigitalGlobe, GeoEye,

ITT and Ball Aerospace. Ratner explains that investors receive advice from analysts to

buy shares in names that provide military equipment and related services required by

soldiers on the ground.

Companies such as ITT, Mantech and Chemring Group produce devices that detect

roadside bombs; L-3 Communications, Raytheon and General Dynamics make computer
5
Christopher Hellman, National Priorities Project, ‘War costs – Iraq Costs: Iraq and Afghanistan’
chellman@nationalpriorities.org 

6
Ibid.
7
Jonathan Ratner op. cit
 10

networks, specializing in intelligence; L-3, American Science and Engineering, and

Smiths Detection are some of the world’s leading suppliers of body and luggage scanners

for airports; Rockwell Collins designs advanced navigation and communication systems.

Armament industries, located mainly in the US and Europe, fetch enormous profits

through sales of military hardware thus giving impetus to capitalism in general and to

armament capitalism in particular.

The US is the biggest supplier of conventional arms to conflict ridden areas across the

world and will sell to all sides of the conflict. 8 Between 1996 and 2000, the US sold arms

worth $50 billion to anyone willing to pay. 9 In 1976, American President, Jimmy Carter,

noted the irony in his remark that, ‘we can't be both the world's leading champion of

peace and the world's leading supplier of arms.’ Nevertheless, in the year 2000 arms with

$37 billion were sold in the international market and the US accounted for $18 billion of

the total sales. Around 70 per cent of the arms exports went to developing countries. 10

Armament capitalism profits immensely from conflicts around the world.

American aid to countries across the world is tied to the purchase of arms. The US has

agreed to provide Israel aid to the tune of $2.77 in 2010 and $30 billion over the next ten

years. Israel is bound by an agreement to use 75 per cent of the aid to buy US military

hardware.11 Egypt receives $1.7 billion from the US also tied to military purchases. Out

of a total aid budget amounting to $5.1 billion, the US spent 17 per cent on military aid in

2008.12 Of the total amount of $5.1 billion, $4.7 billion was in the form of grants to

8
Richard P. Grimmett Report ‘Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations – 1993-2000’ .
Mediterranean Quarterly - Volume 13, Number 2, Spring 2002, pp. 36-55.
9
SIPRI. Report ‘The Suppliers of Major Conventional Weapons’. The SIPRI Arms Transfers Program.
http://www.sipri.org/yearbook/2009/07/07A
10
Farrukh Saleem ‘American pretense of virtue breaks down’. The News. September 2, 2001.
11
Anne Davies. ‘US Aid tied to purchase of arms’. January 2, 2010 http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-
aid-tied-to-purchase-of-arms-20100101-llsb.html
12
Ibid.
 11

enable governments to buy US equipment. Between 2003 and 2009 a sum of $49 billion

was poured into Iraq and $15 billion into Afghanistan in the form of defence funds. 13

Since 2001 a sum of $9 billion given to Pakistan to fight terrorism was diverted to

military ends. Under the Obama Administration, the aid budget for 2010 has been

increased by 10 per cent to nearly $50 billion to support his counter-terrorism strategy.

With the proliferation of arms and ammunition worth billions, conflict is stirred up,

sustained and prolonged in different parts of the world where ethnic, sectarian, religious

or national struggles have gone on for decades. Apart from the spread of the

conventional weapons of war, the illegal smuggling of small arms across entire regions,

such as South Asia, has further added fuel to the fire of ethnic, nationalist and religious

tensions throughout the region.14

The proliferation of arms and ammunition tends to engender an arms race among rival

states, especially those locked in prolonged border conflicts such as India and Pakistan.

In 2009, India’s defence spending rose by almost 50 per cent to a colossal $32.7 billion. 15

India is making massive plans to buy armaments including fighter jets with a price tag of

$11 billion, T-90S tanks, Scorpion submarines, Phalcon AWACS and multi-barrel rocket

launchers as well as an aircraft carrier.16 India’s defence spending comes to 2.7 per cent

of its Gross Domestic Product. In 2009, Pakistan’s defence spending was estimated to be

around $4.3 billion while unofficial figures place it at $7.8 billion. 17 Roughly three-

fourths of the population of both India and Pakistan earns $2 a day or less. Pakistan’s

13
Ibid.
14
Imtiaz Ahmed. ‘Contemporary Terrorism and the State, Non-State, and the Interstate: Newer Drinks,
Newer Bottles’. In Khatri, Sridhar K. & Kueck, Gert W. (eds). 2003. Terrorism in South Asia: Impact on
Development and Democratic Process. Colombo: RCSS. pp. 353-388.
15
Farrukh Saleem. ‘India Pakistan Military Angle’. The News International, January 1, 2010.
16
Ibid.
17
Ibid.
 12

external debt stands at over $40 billion and the country is currently under an IMF

Stabilization program for its economic survival. As India acquires Airborne Warning and

Control Systems from Israel, Pakistan turns to China for the same. As India inks a

nuclear deal with the US, Pakistan demands one for itself. As Pakistan produces Thunder

Jets and expects to receive Unmanned Aerial Vehicles from the US, India looks toward

Russia for the latest technology of death and the race goes on. The very presence and

easy availability of arms stirs up excuses for engaging in conflict to test the latest toys of

destruction. The nationalist hysteria, jingoism and facile patriotism that accompany the

spectacular displays of Hatf, Ghauri, Shaheen, Agni, Akash and other missiles, can act as

fuel added to the fire of hatred on both sides of the border.

The entire world has become a militarized planet as a result of the massive arms sales and

military bases around the globe. Even space has been militarized in the imperial

conception of Star Wars (Strategic Defence Initiative). The Comprehensive Test Ban

Treaty lies in tatters after the US as well as other countries refused to ratify it. The Non-

Proliferation Treaty is known more for its violation than adherence. The Anti-Ballistic

Missile Treaty of 1972 was unilaterally shred to pieces by the Bush Administration. In

short, human beings today live in a militarized reality that surrounds our lives in

hundreds of ways and in a manner that there is no escape from it. We are virtually

saturated with military images and signs that adorn our TV screens, magazines,

textbooks, billboards, monuments, roads and everyday life (Enloe ). Global arms sales

enable citizens of rich countries to live prosperous lives since the many industries tied to

the armament industry also profit from this lucrative market. At the same time it leaves

people in poor countries increasingly in debt (as money is used by their ruling elites to
 13

buy ever more expensive and sophisticated arms) and poverty-stricken. Capitalism can

ensure high lifestyles for some only at the expense of poverty for others.

In recent times, the public-private partnership in war and defence enterprises has created

and enlarged a shadowy world in which intelligence agencies, secret agencies and private

defence contractors collude in the making of death and destruction. Through the

privatization of war, the work of creating death and torture is contracted out to companies

that do the dirty, illegal work which allows states to maintain a moral image, and pretend

ignorance about the underbelly where sordid realities are carefully excluded from view.

The private security company, Blackwater, renamed Xe Services after achieving

notoriety for the murder of civilians in Iraq, and DynCorp are some of the companies

which have engaged in illicit activities that have vitiated international law and norms that

govern inter-state conflict. Erik Prince, the founder of Blackwater, has been described by

human rights activists and Democrat legislators in the US as a war profiteer ‘one who has

assembled a rogue fighting force capable of toppling governments. His employees have

been repeatedly accused of using excessive, even deadly force in Iraq; many Iraqis, in

fact, have died during encounters with Blackwater’.18

The collusion between Blackwater and the CIA came to light in January 2010 when

Jeremy Scahill revealed that ‘German prosecutors launched a ‘preliminary investigation

into allegations that the CIA deployed a team of Blackwater operatives on a clandestine

operation in Hamburg, Germany, after 9/11 ultimately aimed at assassinating a German

citizen with suspected ties to Al Qaeda’.19 Eric Margolis reports that there is growing

18
Adam Ciralsky, ‘Tycoon, Contractor, Soldier, Spy’. January 2010.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2010/01/blackwater-201001
19
Jeremy Scahill, ‘Did the CIA Deploy a Blackwater Hit Team in Germany’. The Nation, January 8, 2010.
 14

criticism of the US government’s use of ‘more than 275,000 mercenaries (a.k.a. "private

contractors") in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. These hired gunmen and logistics

personnel operate without any accountability, legal structure or oversight.’20 Margolis

reveals that ‘Private mercenary firms like Xe (formerly Blackwater) and DynCorp have

raked in fortunes running private armies for the U.S. They are major donors to the far

right of the Republican Party. Deeply worried civil libertarians call these private armies

potential, 1930s-style Brownshirts.’21 The informal alliance between the conservative far

right, private defence contractors, official secret agencies, and the government in the

form of the Pentagon, makes up the nightmarish world of murder with impunity, and

erosion of international law and norms governing war.

The U.S. Joint Special Operations Command, with the help of hired hands from the Xe

Services, has planned targeted assassinations of suspected Taliban and Al Qaeda

operatives, the kidnap of high-value targets and other sensitive actions within and outside

Pakistan. Small numbers of U.S. Special Forces operatives have also reportedly been sent

in to train Pakistan’s Special Forces. Earlier, the presence of Blackwater on Pakistani

soil was vehemently denied by the Pakistani government. However, its presence in the

country was finally confirmed by no less than Secretary of Defence, Robert Gates .22 The

governments, armies and secret agencies of both the US and Pakistan have collectively

created a twilight zone where legality and morality hold no sway, where kidnappings and

20
Eric Margolis, ‘Reining in US Rent-a-Rambos’, Toronto Sun, Sunday, March 21, 2010,
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/03/21-0

21
Ibid.
22
Jeremy Scahill, ‘Blackwater in Pakistan: Gates Confirms’. The Nation, January 22, 2010.
 15

murder are committed with impunity; and terror, created by states themselves, reigns

supreme.

However, there is some evidence of a turf war and territoriality between the Pentagon,

CIA and mercenary armies. According to Margolis, what makes the Pentagon furious is

that the CIA runs its own killer paramilitary units and drone assassination operations, 90

per cent of whose victims are civilians.23 Owing to the expanded and influential role the

CIA has carved out for itself, there is apprehension in the US that even Presidents are

afraid of the CIA.24 Highlighting the twilight world of ‘Shadow Wars’, Tom Engelhardt

and Nick Turse point out the secret and clandestine nature of modern war where the

boundaries dividing legal from illegal, legitimate from illegitimate seem to disappear. As

they write:

We don't even have a language to describe it accurately.  Think of it as a battlefield filled

with muscled-up, militarized intelligence operatives, hired-gun contractors doing military
duty, and privatized "native" guard forces.  Add in robot assassins in the air 24/7 and
kick-down-the-door-style night-time "intelligence" raids, "surges" you didn't know were
happening, strings of military bases you had no idea were out there, and secretive
international collaborations you were unaware the U.S. was involved in.  In Afghanistan,
the American military is only part of the story.  There's also a polyglot "army"
representing the U.S. that wears no uniforms and fights shape-shifting enemies to the
death in a murderous war of multiple assassinations and civilian slaughter, all enveloped
in a blanket of secrecy. 25

23
Eric Margolis, ‘Reining in US Rent-a-Rambos’, Toronto Sun, Sunday, March 21, 2010.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/03/21-0
24
Ray McGovern, ‘Are Presidents Afraid of the CIA?’ December 29, 2009. CommonDreams.org
25
Tom Engelhardt & Nick Turse, , ‘The Shadow War: Making Sense of the New CIA Battlefield in
Afghanistan’. January 11, 2010 http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/11-7 Also see Ralph
Nadar, ‘Empire, Oligarchy and Democracy’, March 1, 2010. CommonDreams.org Nadar writes that ‘The
Times reports "how far the C.I.A. has extended its extraordinary secret war beyond the mountainous tribal
belt and deep into Pakistan's sprawling cities." Working with Pakistan's counterpart agency, the C.I.A. has
had some cover to do what it wants in carrying out "dozens of raids throughout Pakistan over the past
year," according to the Times. "Secret War" has been a phrase applied numerous times throughout the
C.I.A's history, even though the agency was initially created by Congress right after World War II to gather
intelligence, not engage in lethal operations worldwide. Unrestrained by either Congress or the federal
 16

Capitalism is, as demonstrated above, deeply intertwined with imperial pursuits and tends

to maintain a condition of permanent war. War by states is no longer only a public

project to defend the hallowed frontiers of a state and nation. It has become a lucrative

private pursuit of profit through the spilling of blood. The constraints and limitations that

normally apply to regular armies and soldiers (although the Rules of Engagement are

seldom followed), have no relevance in the bloodthirsty and callous world of private

mercenary armies that can kill with impunity and remain unaccountable. To be sure,

official state armies also engage in murder and rape of civilians and flout the Geneva

Conventions and international law, but they are answerable, at least in theory. The dark

realms of private armies, hired by secret agencies to perform acts that are not allowed in

international law, to inflict torture during interrogations, to do all that is prohibited under

the human rights regime, are a new phenomenon on the horizon of militarized

imperialism.

States of Exception, War Crimes and Impunity

Permanent war has created a permanent ‘state of exception’ wherein all international

rules, laws and norms lie suspended, thereby enabling war crimes for which no one can

be held accountable (Agamben, 2005). The war of aggression in Iraq led to around 1.2

million civilian casualties by some accounts.26 This war of choice, conducted against

courts, Presidents say they can and do order their subordinates to go anywhere in the world, penetrate into
any country, if they alone say it is necessary to seize and destroy for what they believe is the national
security.’

26
Lancet Surveys of War Casualties. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casualties
 17

international law by flouting the standards set by the UN, led to some of the worst

atrocities known to humankind. The torture of prisoners in Abu Ghraib, flashed on

television screens across the world, show how the Geneva Conventions were overturned

by vengeful and vicious soldiers who used sexual violence and degrading methods with

wild abandon. The Iraqis, who had no idea for which crimes they were punished so

ruthlessly, were stripped of all their human rights and reduced to ‘bare life’ (Agamben,

1998).

The War on Terror, ostensibly against ‘terrorists’ allegedly planning attacks on the US, is

now widely believed to be another imperial war for energy resources. It has no defined

enemy, no specific aim and no foreseeable end. It is permanent, against anybody who

expresses antipathy towards the US, and it uses all kinds of advanced weaponry against

defenceless people. In a reversal of moral discourse, aggression is invariably defined as

self-defence, while the opponent’s right of self-defence is denied. It is a war that has

created permanent exceptions to the rule of law, civil liberties and basic rights through

instruments such as Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, satellite surveillance of citizens

and violations of privacy, with Big Brother keeping a hawkish eye over every citizen’s

every move, action and speech. While prisoners in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay

had no human, civil or citizenship rights as they were reduced to bare bodies, even

American citizens were stripped of many of the rights and entitlements that separate

citizens from ‘bare life’.

The war crimes in Iraq, though documented by many observers, have never been

acknowledged by the powers that inflicted untold miseries on the Iraqi people. William

Blum finds parallels between Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Iraq by pointing out that babies
 18

born in Fallujah after the siege by Americans have severe deformities, brain damage and

paralysis.27 Detailing the atrocities during the war in Iraq, Blum writes:

One could fill many large volumes with the details of the environmental and human
horrors the United States has brought to Fallujah and other parts of Iraq during seven
years of using white phosphorous shells, depleted uranium, napalm, cluster bombs,
neutron bombs, laser weapons, weapons using directed energy, weapons using high-
powered microwave technology, and other marvelous inventions in the Pentagon's
science-fiction arsenal ... the list of abominations and grotesque ways of dying is long,
the wanton cruelty of American policy shocking. In November 2004, the US military
targeted a Fallujah hospital "because the American military believed that it was the
source of rumors about heavy casualties." That's on a par with the classic line from the
equally glorious American war in Vietnam: "We had to destroy the city to save it." 28

Today’s civilized world and the so-called ‘international community’ turns a blind eye to

illegal renditions of suspects to countries where torture is legal, remains silent on the de-

humanization at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, supports water boarding as an

interrogation technique and presides over the destruction of rule of law across the globe.

The criminal silence is maintained because the serious violations of human rights and

international law are committed by the very countries and nations that once prided

themselves on upholding such rights and norms. They still make hollow claims to a

moral discourse leaving the world incredulous over blatant hypocrisy and double

standards.

While American soldiers worldwide have been accused of more war crimes than any

other army, the US has made concerted efforts to scuttle the International Criminal Court

(ICC), founded in Rome in 1998 and coming into force in 2002. The Court was

established in The Hague, Netherlands and according to Article 5 of the Rome Statute, it

was empowered to investigate and indict individuals for "The crime of genocide; Crimes

against humanity; War crimes; or The crime of aggression." From its inception, the

27
William Blum. ‘After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there was Fallujah’. 7 April, 2010, Countercurrents.org
28
Ibid.
 19

United States was opposed to joining the ICC, and has never ratified it, because of the

alleged danger of the Court using its powers to "frivolously" indict Americans.   On the

contrary, in 2002, Congress, under the Bush administration, passed the "American

Service Members Protection Act", which called for "all means necessary and appropriate

to bring about the release of any US or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned

by ... the International Criminal Court." American soldiers can commit the worst crimes

against humanity with impunity as they will not be held accountable.

The US has been engaged in extra-judicial killings in Pakistan through the use of

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (drones) that have killed scores of civilians. In 2009, 44

predator strikes were carried out by US drones in the tribal areas of Pakistan. Out of

these, five hit targets and killed militants, while over 700 civilians were killed in the

attacks.29 For every single militant killed, 140 innocent Pakistanis lost their lives. The

drones continue the attacks despite that fact that the success of predator drone hits is a

mere 11 per cent. Each month, around 58 civilians are killed; twelve persons are

murdered each week by these latter day predators in the sky. 30 Max Kantar reports that

drones were used covertly for four years from Janaury 14, 2006 to April 8, 2009. During

these bombings, 687 civilians and 14 Al Qaida operatives were killed. 31 This comes to

nearly 50 civilians for every Al Qaida operative killed which means a 94 per cent civilian

death rate. Out of a total of 60 strikes, only ten hit any Al Qaida targets. The failure of

29
DAWN News, January 2, 2010.
30
Ibid.
31
Max Kantar: ‘International Law: The First Casualty of Drone war’. December 12, 2009. Global Policy
Forum. http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/163-general/48551-international-law-the-
first-casualty-of-the-drone-war.html
 20

the drone attacks was attributed to ‘faulty intelligence information’ which resulted in the

murder of hundreds of civilians including women and children.32

According to Engelhardt and Turse, ‘globally, we have become the world’s leading state

assassins -- a judge, jury, and executioner beyond the bounds of all accountability. In

essence, those pilot-less planes turn us into a law of war unto ourselves.’ 33 Several

scholars and the UN Special Rapporteur on Extra-judicial Executions, as well as civil

rights activists, have questioned the legality of the murder of civilians by unmanned

drones. Many have declared these attacks as unlawful arguing that they transgress

international law. However, the US State Department’s legal advisor, Harold Koh,

publicly defended the targeted killings as being legal and asserted that ‘in this ongoing

armed conflict, the United States has the authority under international law, and the

responsibility to its citizens, to use force, including lethal force, to defend itself, including

by targeting persons such as high-level al Qaeda leaders who are planning attacks’. 34 By

inverting the ideas of defence and aggression, and attributing the latter to the ‘other’, the

US government justified its illegal acts of murder.

The Geneva Conventions of 1949, the Additional Protocols of 1977, as well as the

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, regard the killing on non-

combatants a violation of international humanitarian law. Other articles that are violated

through these killings include Additional Protocol I: Article 17 (Role of the civilian

population and of aid societies), Article 51 (Protection of the civilian population), Article

32
Ibid.
33
Tom Engelhardt and Nick Turse, ‘The Year of the Assassin.’ January 6, 2010, Asia Times Online.
www.atimes.com
34
Keith Johnson, ‘US Defends Legality of Killing with Drones’. 6 April, 2010. www.worldnews.com
 21

52 (General Protection of civilian objects), Article 53 (Protection of cultural objects and

places of worship), and Article 57 (Precautions in attack) As Marjorie Cohn writes

For the first time in history, a civilian intelligence agency is using robots to carry out a
military mission, selecting people for targeted killings in a country where the United
States is not officially at war…The use of these drones in Pakistan violates both the UN
Charter and the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit willful killing. Targeted or political
assassinations—sometimes called extrajudicial executions—are carried out by order of,
or with the acquiescence of, a government, outside any judicial framework. As a 1998
report from the UN Special Rapporteur noted, “extrajudicial executions can never be
justified under any circumstances, not even in time of war.” Willful killing is a grave
breach of the Geneva Conventions, punishable as a war crime under the U.S. War Crimes
Act.35

In spite of the massive and grave violations of international and humanitarian law, and

human rights norms and conventions, the warmongers of the Iraq and Afghanistan

debacles escaped accountability. After the former US Secretary of Defence, Donald

Rumsfeld threatened to block any new requests for cash for NATO’s new multi-million

pound headquarters in Brussels, Belgium amended its war crimes laws that would have

targeted George Bush and the commander of the American forces in Iraq, General

Tommy Franks. Cases could now only be mounted if the defendant or the victim was a

Belgian national or resident.36 The most powerful perpetrators of war crimes were thus

able to go scot-free even as they slaughtered millions.

Former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who staunchly aided and abetted the US

illegal invasion of Iraq, boasted in a BBC television interview that he would have

attacked Iraq regardless of the presence or not of Weapons of Mass Destruction.. Tony

Blair lied blatantly to the British public and the world at large by claiming that ‘terrorists’

35
Marjorie Cohn, ‘A Grave Breach of the Geneva Conventions; Why Af/Pak War is Illegal’. December
21, 2009. Counterpunch. http://www.counterpunch.org/cohn12212009.html

36
Stephen Castle, ‘Belgium to lift threat of Bush war crimes trial’. 24 June, 2003, The Independent. Also
see Chris Marsdon, ‘The International League of War Criminals’, December 17, 2009, World Socialist
Website www.wsws.org
 22

could assemble a nuclear weapon and deliver it within 45 minutes. The British MI6 also

supplied information to the US that Saddam Hussain had obtained uranium from Niger.

The fabrication of such tales and myths became a persistent theme in 10 Downing Street

and the White House, each one supporting and bolstering the other in the manufacture of

mass deception. The findings by the UN Inspector, Hans Blix and International Atomic

Energy Agency head, El-Baradei, that Iraq did not possess WMD, were mocked and

peremptorily discarded by the US and UK. Ultimately, David Kay, head of the Iraq

Survey Group, found that the invaders were all wrong. Kay’s successor, Charles Duelfer,

found that the chances of finding the so-called stockpiles of Iraq’s WMDs were ‘close to

nil’ as Iraq as Saddam had ended his nuclear program in 1991. 37 There are skeptics

worldwide who believe that Bush and Blair knew the truth all along, and misguided the

37
The ISG (Iraq Survey Group) was made up of more than one thousand Americans, Britons and
Australians, with the United States providing the bulk of the personnel and resources for the operation.
These people included civilian and military intelligence and WMD experts, as well as a large number
people working to provide armed security and support. David Kay, a prominent U.S. scientist who searched
for WMD after the first Gulf War, was chosen to head the group. The agency tasked as the head U.S.
Government Agency of the ISG was a joint venture of the CIA and the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency,
the DoD counterpart to the CIA). The Iraq Survey Group was the successor to the United Nations
inspections teams, UNMOVIC led by Hans Blix and from the IAEA led by Mohamed ElBaradei, which
had been mandated by the U.N. Security Council to search for illegal weapons before the conflict. After
six months searching for WMD, the ISG issued an Interim Progress Report on October 3, 2003. The team
has found evidence of "WMD-related program activities" but no actual chemical, biological or nuclear
weapons. On January 23, 2004, the head of the ISG, David Kay, resigned his position, stating that he
believed WMD stockpiles would not be found in Iraq. "I don't think they existed," commented Kay. "What
everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last Gulf War and I don't think there
was a large-scale production program in the nineties." In a briefing to the Senate Armed Services
Committee, Kay criticized the pre-war WMD intelligence and the agencies that produced it, saying "It turns
out that we were all wrong, probably in my judgment, and that is most disturbing." Kay's successor, named
by CIA director George Tenet, was the former U.N. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer, who stated at the
time that the chances of finding any WMD stockpiles in Iraq were "close to nil." On September 30, 2004,
the ISG released the Duelfer Report, its final report on Iraq's WMD programs. Among its Key Findings:
Saddam ended his nuclear program in 1991. ISG found no evidence of concerted efforts to restart the
program, and Iraq’s ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively decayed after 1991.
In March 2004 Hans Blix and El-Baradei reported that the US had ignored evidence against the existence
of WMD in Iraq and the basis of the war was unjustified. In 2004, Blix published a book, Disarming Iraq,
where he gives his account of the events and inspections before the coalition began its invasion. Ultimately,
no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction were found.
 23

world into the genocidal invasion. Neil Clark believes that the war crimes case against

Tony Blair is now rock solid.38 Upon being asked by Chairman of the Inquiry on Iraq

War, Sir John Chilcot, whether or not he had any regrets about the war, Blair responded

that although he was sorry that it had been divisive, it was right to remove Saddam

Hussain to make the world a safer place.

The right to commit mass murder with such impunity, all the time invoking the ideas of

‘protection’, ‘safety of citizens’ and ‘self-defence’, makes a mockery of the scores of UN

Conventions and agreements designed to prevent war crimes. This raises the question of

the responsibility to protect entire populations of civilians against genocide and violence

by their own or other states. The debate around the Responsibility to Protect by making

humanitarian or other interventions, is caught between the need to protect large groups of

people from annihilation by their own state or a majority ethnic or religious group, and

the need to respect the sovereignty of states. 39 This is a tricky issue. States claim

sovereignty within their territorial boundaries; however when large groups are threatened

with genocide and extinction, the world’s conscience cannot remain immune. On the

other hand, those who intervene on the pretext of protecting people, for example, saving

the women of Afghanistan against Taliban atrocities, end up committing heinous crimes

against humanity in the name of protection.

38
Neil Clark, ‘War crime case against Tony Blair now rock solid’. December 14, 2009, The First Post.
www.thefirstpost.co.uk/57361,news-comment,news-politics,war-crime-case-against-tony-blair-is-now-
rock-solid
39
THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT. REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
INTERVENTION AND STATE SOVEREIGNTY, DECEMBER 2001; Also see outcome of the World
Summit, 2005.
 24

The balance between sovereignty and protection is a delicate one and interventions need

to be commensurate with the violation, cognizant of civilian safety and in line with

international rules and procedures. It is the state that is expected to guarantee the

protection of its citizens’ life, liberty and property. Nevertheless, the state is often the

worst perpetrator of crimes against its own citizens. This dilemma is not easy to resolve

by any means; yet, it needs serious thought in a complex world where multiple states

commit multiple crimes against multiple populations, all the while dressing their motives

in moral attire.

Gendered Wars Transforming Gender

The gendered nature of war has been recognized by feminists for a fairly long period of

time. In her seminal work, Against Our Will, Susan Brownmiller detailed the issue of

rape in war and the specific nature of sexualized violence during conflict (Brownmiller,

1975). She has been followed by a long list of feminists who have worked on the nature

of militarization and its multifarious effects on society, in particular its complex relation

with sexuality (Enloe, 1983; 1990 & 2000). In her work, Does Khaki Become You? The

Militarization of Women’s Lives, Enloe raises the question of victimhood versus women’s

agency in war. While recognizing that women constitute the majority of the world’s

refugees fleeing violence, she contends that women are also active participants in the

project of war (Enloe, 1983).

Enloe argues that women are both victims and participants in war as those who co-

operate in the enterprise, and are camp followers through the internalization of the

militaristic values and beliefs to prove their loyalty and patriotism. She suggests that the

impetus toward gender equality plays a role in women becoming vulnerable to military
 25

values and their desire to enlist (Enloe, 1983). The discourse of victimhood versus

agency, women as aggressors as well as victims, has been further elaborated by feminists

in an attempt to understand the moment of transformation when women move beyond

victimhood to agency (Manchanda, 2001; Moser & Clark, 2001; de Mel, 2001).

In her renowned work, Bananas, Beaches and Bases, Enloe addresses the issue of the

widely prevalent sexism in all areas of modern life including the tourism industry (Enloe,

1990). She sheds light on the gendered colonial metaphors of the masculine West

opposed to a feminine East, and examines how the notions of ‘masculinity’ and

‘femininity’ operate in international politics and the implementation of government

policy. She argues that in the face of relentless orientalism, Muslim women in particular

felt impelled to exonerate and uphold their cultural practices. In her book, Maneuvers:

The International Politics of Militarizing Women’s Lives, Enloe further explicates upon

the theme of militarization and demonstrates how governments draw upon women’s labor

in the process of preparing for and fighting wars (Enloe, 2000). In this work Enloe

deconstructs everyday culture to reveal that people who become militarized are not

necessarily those whose work is directly concerned with offices and factories that

manufacture fighter planes, land mines and inter-continental ballistic missiles. She

shows how food companies, clothing manufacturers, film studios, toy makers, advertising

agencies and stock brokerages are all implicated in creating an ethos of militarization.

She depicts films that equate action with war, fashions that celebrate brass buttons and

epaulettes and tomato soup that contains pasta shaped like Star Wars weapons, arguing

that all such signs and symbols of everyday existence entrench militarist values and mold
 26

the culture of war and peace. Most of the signs and symbols that reflect such values rely

on and reproduce ideas of ‘masculinity’ and ‘femininity’.

The articulation of a militarized state in everyday life was also highlighted by Lala Rukh

in her examination of the Pakistani monuments that are erected to depict war planes,

submarines and soldiers in prominent public places, with a view towards inscribing the

nation-state on the minds and hearts of the population (Lala Rukh, 1997). In the context

of Sri Lanka, de Mel highlights the cultural consequences of violence and views

‘militarization as a process through which the ideology of militarism is shaped and shared

in a manner that makes militant solutions to conflict a part of institutional structures and

ways of thought.  It foregrounds militarization as activity and agency, capable of

adaptation and transforming society in significant ways; and as a deeply gendered,

contingent and shifting process’ (de Mel, 2007). To understand the way in which popular

culture depicts a militarized nationalism, Saigol conducted a study of popular war songs

which draw upon notions of motherhood, valour, martyrdom and violence to celebrate the

masculine nation and its heroes, while simultaneously denigrating and feminizing the

enemy (Saigol, 1997). Everyday culture in most societies is replete with the imagery of

war and death, glory, patriotism, the nation and the military. Military imagery, along

with its erotic and sexualized underpinnings, is deeply embedded in the very language

that is used to describe military technology (Cohn, 1987).

A number of feminists have examined the gendered nature of nation-states and

nationalism in terms of their role in provoking, sustaining and maintaining conflict

(Khattak, 1995 & 1997; Cockburn, 1998). Toktas explores the relation between
 27

nationalism and militarism which shows ‘militarism as an extension and manifestation of

state sovereignty and national identity with its heterosexual and masculine substantiation’

(Toktas, 2002). Feminists have also pioneered studies on the impact of conflict on

women, with particular emphasis on the specifically sexual nature of the violence

(Menon & Bhasin, 1997; Butalia, 1998).

One of the themes that often run, consciously or unconsciously, through the writings of

feminists on militarization is the way in which it transforms gender ideologies, creating

new masculinities and femininities better adapted to the contemporary situation. Gender

ideology and the construction of masculinities and femininities are not static processes;

rather, it appears that newer forms of each arise based on the demands of global

militarisation (Sadeque, 1995). The state and nation call upon their men and women to

perform certain actions, fulfill certain duties, and act and behave in specified ways to

serve the goals of the nation as patriotic citizens. Women’s need to be included in the

nation and recognized as full citizens with equal rights, impels them toward accepting

and internalizing roles that were traditionally associated with men. The need for equality

induces women to internalize the notions of patriotism in a manner that may involve

violence, including sexual violence, as a necessary component.

This aspect is succinctly brought out by Enloe in her book, Globalization and Militarism:

Feminists Make the Link, which underscores the subtle as well as blatant way in which

militarism functions in the global political economy (Enloe, 2007). This work explores

women’s need to demonstrate their patriotism and men’s fear of becoming feminized,

and the manner in which these needs and fears are harnessed to the project of global
 28

militarism. In particular, this work explains how ideas about feminization functioned to

humiliate prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison. Borrowing from Enloe’s work and elaborating

upon it, Correa, Petchesky and Parker (2008) write:

Domination, like liberation, starts from the body, and cultures of war and ethnic and male
supremacy harbour a deep belief in the profanity of women’s bodies. Thus the
feminization and homophobization of the male enemy’s body – through raping prisoners
or forcing them to sodomize or urinate on one another or crawl naked like dogs or wear
hoods that resemble burqas – become imperatives of military conquest. Masculinity, or
manhood, is as much a part of the stakes of war as are oil, gas and land.40

Accompanying the idea of aggression, and sexual violence, during war as a masculine

pursuit, is the notion of peace as feminization. In the context of discussing gender

identity formation in India and Pakistan’s mutually hostile milieu, Babar highlights the

heroism required of male citizens of Pakistan and India, especially during times of crises,

and foregrounds this against the sacrifice asked of female citizens (Babar, 2000). Babar

argues that a belligerent attitude towards the other is valorized and the symbol of the

feminine is used to rob any opposition to dominant thought. In other words, peace is

feminized – restraint and pacifism are unmanly. The fear of the feminine, coupled with a

heightened urge towards a grotesque and distorted masculinity, is evident from the

testimonies of Israeli soldiers who reported the pressure to act in highly aggressive ways

towards the vanquished enemy. Female Israeli soldiers reported the following stresses

They kept repeating to us that this is war and in war opening fire is not restricted....There
was a clear feeling, and this was repeated whenever others spoke to us, that no
humanitarian consideration played any role in the army at present. 41

A Border Patrol First Sargeant said:

Somehow, a female combatant has to prove herself more, on the ground too. Again a
female combatant who can lash out is a serious fighter. Capable. A ball-breaker. There

40
Correa, Petchesky and Parker, Sexuality, Health and Human Rights, p. 198.
41
Stephen Lendman, ‘Breaking the Silence: Women Soldiers Speak Out’. 12 February 2010.
Countercurrents.org.
 29

was one with me when I got there, she'd been there long before, she was - wow, everyone
talked about what grit she had, because she could humiliate Arabs without batting an
eyelash. That was the thing to do…She had a good reputation in her company until in the
field and wasn't tough. Too "wimpy," (she said), unlike "guys (who) need to prove
themselves less in this respect....We (talked about) tough female combatant(s) having no
problem beating up Arabs....Take a look at that one, a real 'ball-breaker,' see her
humiliating them, slapping them, what a slap she gave that guy! You hear this kind of
talk all the time.42

The pressure to conform to the informal codes of the army is immense. Those who fail to

do so are quickly labeled ‘wimpy’ and soft. Correa, Petchesky and Parker discuss this

‘militarized feminization’ in the context of Abu Ghraib and Guantanomo Bay (Correa et

al, 2008). Referring to the role of the Abu Ghraib commander Janis Karpinski who was

demoted, and Lynddie England, who was prosecuted after pictures of her pulling a man

on a leash, were flashed on TV screens across the world, Correa, Petchesky and Parker

write that these women ‘became not only ‘militarized and masculinied’ agents of war for

the Bush regime, but also signifiers of ‘imperial democracy’ (Correa et al, 2008: 197-

198). Such actions seem to signify equality and an expansion of the choices that women

can make about their lives. More women than ever before are serving in today’s armies

and feminists are still uncertain as to how to understand the implications of this

phenomenon (Segal, 2008).

The militarization of society has occurred simultaneously with the civilianization of

conflict. Increasingly, intra-state conflicts have replaced inter-state wars with rising

numbers of civilians becoming embroiled in ethnic, sectarian, religious or sub-national

strife. Internecine wars and sub-national conflicts are also financed through the shadowy,

subterranean channels involved in the smuggling of illegal arms, drugs and money.

Feminists have not yet fully analyzed the global political economy to draw linkages

42
Ibid.
 30

between the gendered nature of licit and illicit informal activities in relation to the

transnational financing of new wars (Peterson, 2008).

However, the work of Dubravka Zarkov is an attempt to connect the global with national

and local processes in understanding how new articulations of masculinity (and by

contrast femininity) emerge in the context of localized conflicts (Zarkov, 2008).

Describing the diamond production and war in West and Central Africa, and especially

the Great Lakes Region, Zarkov outlines the complex and multiple connections between

multinational extracting and trading companies, private security militias, local armed

forces and regional governments. In this twilight world of child soldiers slaving in the

diamond mines, multinational companies producing and distributing small arms and light

weapons, and illegal trading networks exchanging ‘conflict goods’, militarization does

not remain at the level of the economy but enters other social domains (Zarkov, 2008:

11). Zarkov argues that the local livelihoods of men and women are deeply linked to the

economic prospects offered or eliminated by the extracting economies. The prospect of

gaining access to and control over goods, services and people through violence becomes

inextricably linked to the symbolic meanings of masculinities and femininities (Zarkov,

2008: 11). As Zarkov puts it, ‘if being a man means having control over goods, services

and people, then this control will be strived for. And if there are no peaceful, legal or

legitimate means of achieving it, then violence may become an ever more legitimized…

option’ (Zarkov, 2008: 11).

Global militarized capitalism engenders new forms of gender transformations and creates

newer masculinities and femininities. In Afghanistan, global capitalist war created the
 31

Taliban to fight against the competing Soviet imperialism. The Taliban proved to be the

most tyrannical, diabolic and murderous force against Afghan women, who, if one were

to believe the imperial narrative, were to be rescued from bondage by the colonial

liberators. Ironically, today the imperial powers are amenable to talking to the very

Taliban who were described as barbarians and savages when they stood in the way of an

oil pipeline to Central Asia. Even more ironically, women are absent from the

negotiations, excluded from peace processes. Enloe is right in her contention that post-

war reconstruction efforts marginalize women (Enloe, 2007). Meredith Tax rightly

argues that the ‘leadership of women is essential in a peace movement because pacifist

men and conscientious objectors are always accused of cowardice and thus discredited.

Such leadership also asserts the intelligence, capability and humanity of women in a war

climate that usually turns women from individual people into symbols of the motherland,

booty for the conqueror nation, and pieces of meat’ (Tax, 1998).

The Responsibility to Protect

The report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty states

that the searchlight should be on the duty to protect communities from mass killing,

children from starvation and systematic rape for political purposes of women of a

particular group, either as another version of terrorism, or as a means of altering the

ethnic composition of that group.43 The UN Security Council Resolution 1325, passed in

2000, ‘emphasizes the responsibility of all States to put an end to impunity and to
43
The Responsibility to Protect. REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
INTERVENTION AND STATE SOVEREIGNTY, DECEMBER 2001
 32

prosecute those responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes including

those relating to sexual violence against women and girls, and in this regard, stresses the

need to exclude these crimes, where feasible from amnesty provisions’.44 Similarly,

Resolution 1820, adopted by the UN Security Council in 2008, specifically calls for a halt

to sexual violence against civilians in conflict zones.45

On the one hand, the global community refers to a moral discourse in the form of UN

Resolutions against sexual violence during conflict, and emphasizes the responsibility of

all actors to protect women and children by intervening if a state fails to perform its

fundamental duty to its citizens, on the other the very capitalist powers that strategically

deploy this rhetoric, invade and conquer foreign lands through the most brutal means and

degrade the men and women of the vanquished side. Capitalism is inherently

contradictory; it seeks a moral cover even as it engages in rapacious exploitation of lands,

peoples and resources across the globe. Capitalism relies on a moral discourse to provide

a human face to its destructive mode. Unless this contradiction is resolved, and the roots

of capitalism are challenged, there can be little hope that war, militarism, colonization

and imperial domination, and their accompanying violence and destruction, will be

relegated to the dustbin of history.

_________________________________________________________

44
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security. 31 October 2000.
45
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1820 on Halt to Acts of Sexual Violence against Civilians in
Conflict Zones. 2008.
 33

Bibliography

Agamben, Giorgio (1998) Homo sacer: Sovereign power and bare life. Trans. Daniel Heller-
Roazen. California: Stanford University Press.

______________ (2005) State of Exception. Trans. Kevin Attell. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

Ahmed, Imtiaz ‘Contemporary Terrorism and the State, Non-State, and the Interstate: Newer
Drinks, Newer Bottles’, In Khatri, Sridhar K. & Kueck, Gert W. (eds). (2003).
Terrorism in South Asia: Impact on Development and Democratic Process. Colombo:
RCSS. pp. 353-388.

Brownmiller, Susan (1975) Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape. Middlesex: Penguin.

Butalia, Urvashi (1998) The Other Side of Silence: Voices from the Partition of India. New
Delhi:Viking.

Cockburn, Cynthia (1998) The space between us: negotiating gender and national identities in
conflict. New York: Zed Books.

Cohn, Carol ‘Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals’, In Signs, Vol. 12,
No. 4, Within and Without: Women, Gender and Theory. (Summer 1987), pp. 687-718.

Correa, Sonia, Petchesky, Rosalind & Parker, Richard (2008) Sexuality, Health and Human
Rights. Sexuality, Culture and Health Series. New York: Routledge.

de Mel, Neloufer (2001) Women and the Nation’s Narrative: Gender and Nationalism in
Twentieth Century Sri Lanka. New Delhi: Kali for Women.

______________(2007) Militarizing Sri Lanka : popular culture, memory and narrative in the
armed conflict / Neloufer de Mel. Thousand Oaks, Calif. Sage.

Enloe, Cynthia (1983) Does khaki become you? :The militarisation of women’s lives. Boston,
Mass: South End Press.

_____________(1990) Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International

Politics. Berkeley: University of California Press.

____________ (2000) Maneuvers: The International Politics of Militarizing Women’s Lives.

London: University of California Press.

_____________(2007) Globalization and militarism : feminists make the link. Lanham: Rowman
& Littlefield.

Escobar, Arturo (c1995) Encountering development : the making and unmaking of the Third
World. Princeton: NJ: Princeton University Press.
 34

Khattak, Saba (1995) ‘Militarization, Masculinity and Identity in Pakistan – Effects on Women’,
in Khan, N.S.& Afiya Zia (eds) (1995) Unveiling the Issues: Pakistani Women’s
Perspectives on Social, Political and Ideological Issues, Lahore: ASR.

____________(1997) ‘Gendered and Violent: Inscribing the Military on the Nation-state’, in

Hussain, N., Samiya Mumtaz and Rubina Saigol (eds). Engendering the Nation-State,
Vol. 1, Lahore: Simorgh.

Lala Rukh (1997) ‘ImageNation’: A Visual Text’. In Hussain, N., Samiya Mumtaz and Rubina
Saigol (eds). Engendering the Nation-State, Vol. 2, Lahore: Simorgh.

Lenin, Vladimir (1999) Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism: A Popular Outline.
Australia: Resistance Books.

Manchanda, Rita (2001) (ed) Women, war, and peace in South Asia: beyond victimhood to
agency. New Delhi: Sage.

Menon, Rita & Bhasin, Kamla (1997) Borders and Boundaries: Women in India’s Partition. New
Delhi: Kali Press

Moser, Caroline, O.N.& Clark, Fiona, C (2001) Victims, Perpetrators or actors? Gender, armed
conflict and violence. London: Zed Books.

Peterson, V Spike ‘'new wars' and gendered economies’, In Feminist Review (2008) 88, 7–20.

Sadeque, Najma ‘Global Militarization’,Iin Khan, N.S.& Afiya Zia (eds) (1995). Unveiling the
Issues: Pakistani Women’s Perspectives on Social, Political and Ideological Issues,
Lahore: ASR. pp. 17-24.

Saigol, Rubina (1998) Militarization, Nation and Gender: Women’s Bodies as Arenas of Violent
Conflict’, in Mian, Z. and Iftikhar Ahmad. (eds) Making Enemies: Creating Conflict:
Pakistan’s Crises of State and Society. Lahore: Mashal. pp, 109-128.

Segal, Lynne (2008) ‘Gender, war and militarism: making and questioning the links’, In Feminist
Review (2008) 88, 21–35.

Tax, Meredith (1998) ‘Women, Ethnic War, and Civil Society’. Speech at the 1998 session of the
UN Committee on the Status of Women. March 9, 1998.

Toktas, Sule ‘Nationalism, Militarism and Gender Politics: Women in the Military’, In Minerva:
Quarterly Report on Women and the Military, Vol. 20, 2002.

Viswanathan, Gauri (1989) Masks of Conquet: literary study and British rule in India. New
York: Columbia University Press.

Zarkov, Dubravka (ed) (2008) Gender, Violent Conflict, and Development. New Delhi: Zubaan.
35