Security for she, not for we

Last week the International Crisis Group unveiled their op-ed entry in the “Deep Fake: This Is Not The Babylon Bee” competition. Entitled “Another deeply gendered war is being waged in Ukraine,” it is a blinkered attempt to prove that even in the raw violence of war, the Left can still count beans, at least until hungry people taking refuge in a cold basement eat them.

But the Western supporters of Ukraine, especially the US, NATO, and the European Union, who have insisted for more than two decades now that women’s security shapes their approach to dealing with war, have done little to show that gender will be their framework, or even a framework, for addressing Ukraine’s predicament.

The author, Ms. Moaveni, is based in London. She has the freedom and safety to write sentences like the following, freedom bought by other people, many of them men, who were holding weapons, not “Give Peace A Chance” signs.

What might prove most challenging for a traditional gender-sensitive approach to this war is the emerging and dominant glorification of the militarisation of an entire society.

What the author calls the “glorification of the militarisation of an entire society” might also be called a will to survive. Ukraine is being invaded by an army that puts shells through the windows of maternity hospitals and apartment buildings. If the Ukrainian people, men and women alike, want to fight back and preferably not die cold and hungry under the treads of a Russian tank, I say we should salute them, not harangue them about why their first thoughts don’t run to identity politics.

The reference to “two decades” in the first quote is not a random one. In October 2000, U.N. Security Council adopted Resolution 1325. The text of it is here. The resolution called for, among other things, the increased participation of women in conflict resolution and in peacekeeping activities.

In response to this resolution, in 2011 President Obama issue an executive order that created the U.S. National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security. In 2017, President Trump (!) signed into law the Women, Peace, and Security Act which mandated the creation of a strategy to implement the priorities that originated in the UN Resolution.

The strategy that resulted from this mandate was released in 2019. The text of it is here. Its main goals are:

LINE OF EFFORT 1: Seek and support the preparation and meaningful participation of women around the world in decision-making processes related to conflict and crises;

LINE OF EFFORT 2: Promote the protection of women and girls’ human rights; access to humanitarian assistance; and safety from violence, abuse, and exploitation around the world;

LINE OF EFFORT 3: Adjust United States international programs to improve outcomes in equality for, and the empowerment of, women; and

LINE OF EFFORT 4: Encourage partner governments to adopt policies, plans, and capacity to improve the meaningful participation of women in processes connected to peace and security and decision-making institutions

Major institutions in the US Government were to come up with strategies to meet these goals. The text of the US Department of Defense’s strategy is here. This strategy has three goals:

Defense Objective 1. The Department of Defense exemplifies a diverse organization that allows for women’s meaningful participation across the development, management, and employment of the Joint Force.

Defense Objective 2. Women in partner nations meaningfully participate2 and serve at all ranks and in all occupations in defense and security sectors.

Defense Objective 3. Partner nation defense and security sectors ensure women and girls are safe and secure and that their human rights are protected, especially during conflict and crisis.

The US Military has more than a few efforts underway as part of this framework. For instance, peruse what NorthCom and SouthCom are doing.

Efforts to prevent violence against women are noble, and if that’s all this was about, it might be one of the better things the US Government has done. But sliding in through the back door is another agenda at work. Remember, to the Left “gender” is not biological sex, it is a social construct, something learned. And because it can be learned, it can be unlearned, or taught even if we have to pry open your jaws and cram it down your throat. The US Strategy called for a periodic review of progress. Here is a 2021 report the Biden Administration did to meet that requirement. Tell me if this snippet from the introduction sounds like a benign effort to provide peace and safety for the most vulnerable in war zones.

While this report focuses on the Departments of State, Defense, and Homeland Security and USAID, I have instructed departments and agencies across the Federal Government to prioritize gender equity and equality. The persistent unequal treatment of women around the world — particularly women of color, LGBTQI+ women, and other women who face overlapping forms of discrimination — remains a critical, unfinished project of our time.

I’m a Philistine, and I would prefer our military focus on how to win wars with as few casualties to our side as possible. When the barbarian comes over the hill, and I want him to see spread out before him a force so strong and capable he wets himself in the split second before a round goes through his forehead.

Besides the United States, quite a number of countries have come up with some sort of framework in the spirit of the UN Resolution. One of them was Afghanistan. The text of it is here. How did that piece of paper work out for them? What the women of Afghanistan needed was a few good men to pick up a rifle and stand a post when the Taliban rode into town on their motorcycles. They didn’t need happy talk about the opportunity to serve on the Committee to be Women on a Committee. The latter cannot happen now because the former did not happen.

6 thoughts on “Security for she, not for we

  1. Mitch doesn’t realize that he’s championing Ukraine’s chance to one day supply the world with more womyn exactly like the author.

  2. women of color, LGBTQI+ women, and other women who face overlapping forms of discrimination

    But “intersectionality” is just a far-right bogeyman!
    This is an express ordering of the value of people based on immutable racial characteristics and lifestyle choices.

  3. Lost in translation is exactly how we can provide security for women without providing security for the men who are their fathers, sons, husbands, boyfriends, and the like. Last I checked, it took both sexes to create and raise the next generation, so emphasizing the security of only one sex would seem to be a little bit counter-productive.

  4. It’s like they honestly believe the old New York Times headline: world ends, women and children hardest-hit.

  5. Pingback: In The Mailbox: 03.24.22 (Afternoon Edition) : The Other McCain

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.