Despite the ‘war on terror’ occupying much of the focus of international relations, a sociological approach proves equally compelling due to the unique insight a consideration of gender, understood as socially constructed, temporal acts of masculinity and femininity, and sexuality, encompassing one’s sexual identity and orientation, provides. From the employment of hypermasculine discourse to incite US military conscription to the homogenisation of Middle Eastern all-women militia, a feminist approach to the ‘war on terror’ is indispensable for grasping underlying conflict dynamics. Its role will subsequently be deciphered through a consideration of Western feminist rhetoric and gender-specific combat, as well as sovereign masculinity and homonationality. In doing so, gender and sexuality’s centrality to the ‘war on terror’, recognised as the American-led global counterterrorism campaign launched in response to the 9/11 attacks, will be made apparent.
The centrality of gender is evidenced by the implementation of dichotomous frameworks justifying the waging of liberal wars on illiberal populations, as Western feminist principles reflect inherently neo-colonial and Eurocentric rationales that uphold ‘white saviourism’. Implicit in the premise of the ‘war on terror’ is the victimisation of the ‘Third World Woman’, who transnational feminist Chandra Mohanty describes as a “cultural and ideological composite”, frozen in time and devoid of agency. Contrasted against “women – real material subjects of their collective histories” who reside in North America and Europe, a gendered approach exposes the cultural reductionism intrinsic in motivations for the ‘war on terror’ and ensuing capitalist exploitation of the Middle East, as orientalist assumptions necessitate “white men saving brown women from brown men”. Western discourse therefore self-represents in its representation of Middle Eastern women, embracing them on missionary intent routed in gender exceptionalism which renders their struggle monolithic to that of Western women, subsequently justifying the deployment of ‘enlightened’ forces. The case of Kurdish fighters in the Women’s Protection Unit (YPJ) in Rojava exemplifies this as, despite fighting as a secular force on account of idiosyncratic historical and political factors, American media superficially recognises them on the conditions that they fight as heroines seeking the emancipation of their Western counterparts; a cause divorced entirely from their own. In foisting extraneous gender hegemonies on the ‘Third World Women’ of the YPJ, the geopolitical global order is projected as ontological depictions of the ‘other’ are reinforced in which the “nationalistic, ideological, racial, and civilisational truth” is externally articulated. This simplification of regimes also serves to nullify the complicity of American forces in Middle Eastern terrorist organisations, such as CIA support of the Taliban in the 1980s, as the reemphasising of virtuous intentions mitigates former, conflicting foreign policy decisions. Gender is therefore central to the ‘war on terror’ as it frames the pretences under which combat is initiated. Furthermore, a gendered approach to conflict reveals the disproportionate levels of sexual violence incurred by Muslim women in the ‘war on terror’, and paradoxical nature of the term ‘peacetime’; a concept reliant on patriarchal, state-centric hierarchies of atrocity. In combat, rape functions as a form of individualism and economic materialism whereby combatants extort material power through enforcing unbalanced economic relationships with women, understood as a productive force. Likewise, sexual violence is utilised as an extension of political power in which a habitus of institutionalised misogyny reflects culturally specific tropes, such as military camaraderie, homosociality and impunity. Investigations carried out into the ‘rape differential’ support this as research found that, whilst the rate of violent crimes carried out by the military were lower than civilians in peacetime, combatant’s propensity to rape in wartime increased to 260% of the civilian rate. Not only this, but “infanticide, maternal mortality, intimate killings and lethal genital mutilation” often intensify when war ends, suggesting gendering combat is vital as only feminist interpretations account for the physical and temporal space between war and peace that observes unique forms of social violence. Gender and sexuality are subsequently central to the ‘war on terror’ as they broaden the scope of violence deemed worth of study by situating the individual, as opposed the state, at the core of conflict and serve as a corrective foundation to binary assumptions of war and peace.
Furthermore, gender and sexuality exist as implicitly propagandist tools that dictate the American sense of existence through a synonymisation of masculinity and nationalism. This is reflected in the relationship between sovereign masculinity and American exceptionalism, in which national manhood operates as a particular, self-justifying form of gender sustained by the cultural purchase of America conforming to a unique set of laws and norms. Subsequently, the ‘war on terror’ is justified to the extent that corporate decision makers and governments appeal to viscerally held gender commitments predicated on one’s personal and national identity, as performed masculinity and jingoism become constitutive of one another. This is symbolised by ‘Shock and Awe’ campaigns, as the rationale that overwhelming power bolsters legitimacy and paralyses enemy self-perception encapsulates the hyperbolic, redemptive displays of sovereign masculinity required to reify social belonging. Gender and sexuality are thus integral to the ‘war on terror’ as domestic support for interventionist foreign policy pivots on one’s developmental aspirations to national manhood. Moreover, inherent in American exceptionalism is sexual exceptionalism, further developing the justificatory narrative of Middle Eastern intervention as the US upholds itself as the defender of sexual liberation. Despite the US praising vehement heteronormativity as part of sovereign masculinity and representing LGBTQ+ communities as security threats, as evidenced by historical ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policies, conceptions of tolerance are conjured by homonationalism. Contributing to these projections is the depoliticisation of queerness, in which gay consumer culture marketing specifically to LGBTQ+ communities and the ‘pinkwashing’ of political and corporate campaigns conveys ‘gay-friendly’ sentiments. Depictions of homonormativity are thus fortified and serve as an alibi for complicity in the ‘war on terror’ as the US, masquerading as a bastion of queer identity, appears morally obligated to advance liberal ideology in comparatively degressive states. The contradictory nature of the US championing sexual emancipation all whilst engineering legislation invalidating the existence of LGBTQ+ populations is reflected in attempts to reinstate the transgender military ban and defund anti-discrimination orders. Jasbir Puar’s argument that homophobia and homonationalism coexist are thus evidenced, as well as implications that, on account of the US not condemning the purge of gay and bisexual men in Chechnya, ‘the war on terror’ may not be the crusade for human rights Western rhetoric portrays it to be. Therefore, gender and sexuality are central to the ‘war on terror’ not only as they serve as the psychological impetus stimulating unrelenting compliancy, but also in their value as political tools appropriated in the advocation of the moral superiority of liberalism.
To conclude, the ‘war on terror’ is deeply comprised of feminist dynamics of gender and sexuality as they assume an ideological, psychological, and cultural role in the waging and sustaining of American intervention in the Middle East. Archetypical femininity and masculinity serve as valuable, identity-consolidating incentives to endorse combat as they advance neo-colonial assumptions of Middle Eastern women yearning to experience the freedom of their Western counterparts. Likewise, the embedding of masculinity within nationhood compromises those who challenge the ‘war on terror’ as the performance of masculinity is accredited with expressions of chauvinism. Sexuality is also exploited physically and mentally, as demonstrated by the weaponization of rape against Middle Eastern women and marketisation of homosexuality domestically. Gender and sexuality are subsequently inseparable from the socio-cultural fabric of American combat abroad.
