Islamic State Hysteria – Should we be bombing Syria?

Hysteria surrounding the threat from the Islamic State in the UK has reached fever pitch this week after they supposedly planted a bomb on a Russian plane flying over Sinai province in Egypt killing all 224 passengers on board. At the same time defence secretary Michael Fallon has pronounced it morally indefensible for the UK not to join its allies in bombing Syria and the US have officially announced 20 special operations forces on the ground in Syria. You will notice a great deal of italics in those last few sentences demarking my cynicism here! Whilst I agree with the logic that bombing Iraq and not Syria is ridiculous given the ‘Caliphate’ spans both territories I still disagree with Fallon. I find it staggering and extremely suspect how quick the UK government has been to assume an Islamic State bomb downed the Sinai plane particularly before there was any evidence to support such claims. Media sensationalism is playing straight into the hands of the opportunistic Islamic State whether they are responsible or not. Hysteria is what they want. Terror is a synonym for fear – fear is what they want. It legitimises and encourages their war. This hysteria is extremely reminiscent of the post 9/11 era: it feels as though new boundaries are being drawn and extra-ordinary action is slowly being trickled into public acceptance. Would I be surprised if we saw a boots-on-the-ground debate in the House of Commons before Christmas? Not at all.

And where does gender come into this?

As usual according to mainstream narratives it doesn’t. Appeals to the need to bomb for the sake of ‘women and children’ remain abundant in arguments for air strikes. Particularly given the atrocities committed against women and girls by the Islamic State documented in that pivotal New York Times article. What the media doesn’t focus on is how previous intervention by the Middle East in the West has actually made things worse for Muslim women because of the backlash of extremism and jihadism which promotes a hideously patriarchal version of Islam. Women serve as cultural signifiers, their oppression is the ultimate rejection of western ideals. Furthermore, as mentioned before on this blog the media seems keen to ignore the progress being made by the Kurdish Peshmerga which is made up of predominantly women and remains the only force making real progress in pushing back Islamic State. Islamic State fighters believe that should they be killed by a woman they will go to hell so they are genuinely afraid of these women in contrast to the western bombs which only emblazon their ideological vengeance and recruit more willing martyrs. This is a difficult concept for the West to come to terms with because it subverts several narratives underpinning our entire identity. The ‘brown women victims in need of saviour from barbaric brown men by noble white men’ narrative underpins the very premise of the War on Terror ideology and the Peshmerga completely turns this on its head. When they have been reported on they have been glamorised and sensationalised rather than taken seriously and understood both politically and historically.

The highly militarised, hyper-masculine environment in which these events are perceived is also crucial to understanding why bombs and boots our presented as our only options. Foreign policy and defence remain masculine domains epitomised by men like Michael Fallow where stoicism, rationalism and aggression are heavily relied upon in decision making and the agenda is set by history instead of innovation or insight. Equally, it is overly-simplistic argument to say if there were more women in foreign policy positions more diplomatic or internationalist options may be put on the table in the fights against Islamic State. Hell, Hillary Clinton would be in there all guns blazing given her past! However, fighting fire with fire (fire being militarised, hyper-masculine warfare) only seems to have made things worse in the past and whilst I don’t claim to know any of the answers sticking to the same out-dated and ignorant strategy of simply throwing bombs at the problem seems mad to me. The male, pale and stale defence departments worldwide need new ideas to fight this new threat.

Nigeria Decides in the Spectre of Boko Haram

As the results from the Nigerian national election trickle in it looks likely that the incumbent Goodluck Jonathan has been ousted by the ex-military, Muslim APC candidate and anti-corruption advocate: Muhammadu Buhari. He has received the majority in over a third of the states regions including the capital, Abuja. In the wake of the Boko Haram insurgency, security is rightly top of the election agenda. Women’s rights are intrinsically entwined here but rarely mentioned. Boko Haram translates as ‘Western education is sinful’ and as this denotes the group exists to halt the westernisation of the newly secular Nigerian education system and thus create an Islamic Caliphate in Northern Nigeria. They have been active since 2002 but many consider their tactics, particularly the instrumental use of women and women’s oppression to be a modern phenomenon for the group. The Sunni fundamentals recent pledge of allegiance to the Islamic Caliphate in Iraq and Syria is worrying to foreign defence ministers in both the local region and the world around. Furthermore, surrounding countries are currently facing huge refugee influxes as a result of Boko Haram’s progress. It goes without saying that these refugees are predominantly women and children. Buhari has a fight on his hands. Because of and in spite of the rise of Boko Haram, feminism and women’s rights must also top the newly elected ministers priorities. Unfortunately, it has not been at the top of the election agenda and many Nigerian women understand formal political arenas to be patriarchal institutions therefore have no intentions of voting. For instance, it took Jonathan almost 3 weeks to acknowledge the missing Chibok girls and they are nowhere to be seen in election rhetoric.

It is impossible to see this crisis without considering gender, gender stereotypes and gender-based violence. (GBV) Boko Haram’s very modus operandi is the instrumental oppression and violation of women and girls. Once again, women serve as a currency to Boko Haram, a very valuable one. However, with the highest rates of female circumcision in the region and the constant struggle for girls right to education, Boko Haram are not alone in their patriarchal treatment of women. Nevertheless, counter to popular western ideas of the ‘monolithically oppressed African women’ feminism in Nigeria is thriving and although there is only a 8% proportional share of women in the national assembly this does not mean women are keeping quiet about their oppression. What the mainstream news didn’t tell us about this hitch in the election is that as well as problems with anti-corruption election cards, last Sunday a group of some 2000 female anti-corruption APC campaigners protested in the River State. Women’s political agency is alive and well. For the nation often considered the ‘Capital of Africa’ as the largest oil producer and biggest economy in the region it is extremely significant that Nigeria lead the way for women’s rights and the fight against Islamic extremism that targets them. Development should occur only alongside progressive moves in the fight against women’s subordination; particularly the fight against epidemics of FGM and forced marriage in the region.

Not if Boko Haram have anything to do with it. Similar to the Islamic State, the oppression of women and girls is sewn explicitly into the fabric of Boko Haram. Indeed, their initial presence in western media was as a result of the international outrage at the kidnaping of over 200 schoolgirls in 2013. Since then, although the western bandwagon seems to have trailed off the road, hundreds more women and girls have been kidnapped, raped and forced to marry members of the group. Paradoxically, in recent months, Boko Haram have exploited gender stereotypes by dressing themselves as women to commit attacks. Furthermore several of the recent suicide bombers have been women. This poses questions of whether Boko Haram are now recruiting women or whether this is simply another forced violation of women’s lives. The ascendance of Boko Haram can fundamentally be interpreted as an backlash to the rise of feminism and other ‘western ideals’ in Nigeria. The African region becomes increasingly integrated into the rampage of liberal globalisation, despite plighting resource curses and corruption. Alongside this follows a imperialist spread of western ideals. Personally I would not consider equality between men and women to be a ‘western ideal’ and I am sure that the majority of Nigerian women would not either.

Boko Haram absolutely threaten this progress and the election of a new leader in Nigeria could be a turning point in either direction. Whilst Jonathan has in place a Civilian Joint Task Force in Northern Nigeria this does not seem to be quashing the group like he had hoped. The news that the Arab League is developing a military force in the Middle East to counter their threats without Western intervention should serve as an exemplar to the African Union. The outlook for women is dismal given election rhetoric but in the fight against Boko Haram the Nigerian state can only ignore the fight for women’s rights for so long. The future of all Nigerian women and men hangs in the balance. Men are at risk of being killed on suspicion of allegiance to Boko Haram or being forced to have such allegiance and women risk further violation of their bodies and minds.