Is there a feminist reason to go to war?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

I was reading some articles about Syria and the use of rape as a weapon of war in Syria, and wondering this.

I am usually quite opposed to war, but can we all just ignore this humanitarian crisis in Syria? Can we ignore what is clearly a crisis that is disproportionately affecting women?

Is allowing this to happen without any international interference ethical?

"With every war and major conflict, as an international community we say 'never again' to mass rape," said Nobel Laureate Jody Williams, who is co-chair of the International Campaign to Stop Rape & Gender Violence in Conflict. "Yet, in Syria, as countless women are again finding the war waged on their bodies--we are again standing by and wringing our hands."

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/04/syria-has-a-massive-rape-crisis/274583/

[PDJane]

1. The war is not being waged without international interference.

The US is providing arms and covert support for the 'rebels'. That action is going to have consequences, and women and children will pay.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

2. i get that although what should be done now?

should we just sit and watch this, like we did darfur?

[rrneck]

3. Declarations of war are tied to national interest.

I think as much as we would like to consider our motives for war wholly on the side of moral righteousness, the truth is war is about control of resources. People fight for food, shelter, and energy. And they brutalize others for the same reasons. Going to war to combat rape as a weapon of war is the same as going to war to eliminate bullets.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

5. so should we continue to ignore a humanitarian crisis?

[rrneck]

7. No.

I think we are already offering material assistance. There is no doubt we could do more. But boots on the ground would be out of the question.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

8. why is it out of the question? i am not just suggesting an american effort

but why is boots on the ground out of the question?

[rrneck]

9. Because killing is always wrong, every time, no matter why.

If we send United States citizens to war, and they die, we have to take responsibility for their death. While rape as a weapon of war, and every other horror of armed conflict, causes people to suffer horribly we cannot justifiably send people to fight and die defending our preferences for how warfare is conducted. It would be the height of hypocrisy.

There is no feminist reason to go to war.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

10. so should we not have gone in to bosnia? or germany?

[rrneck]

11. WWI and WWII were global conflicts between empires.

Empires exist to dominate resources.

(Bosnia) was principally a territorial conflict, initially between the Serb forces mostly organized in the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) on the one side, and the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (ARBiH) which was largely composed of Bosniaks, and the Croat forces in the Croatian Defence Council (HVO) on the other side. The Croats also aimed at securing parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina as Croatian.

We didn't have a dog in that fight. I guess it could have destabilized the reigon, which could have impacted us more. But the practice of involving ourselves in internecine regional conflicts is much more likely to result in the waste of blood and treasure without any improvement in the lot of the combatants. We got off lucky in Bosnia, not so much in Somalia, Viet Nam, Cambodia, Laos, Afthanastan...

[msongs]

4. concerned persons could actually go there and put their plan into action nt

[La Lioness Priyanka]

6. what does that mean?

[boston bean]

12. We rarely go to war or take actions for social justice causes.

It's usually in defense of something, or we want something someone else has, like oil.

[Gormy Cuss]

13. I think the only feminist reason to go to war

is to wage war on war.

The author used the example of land mines and I think that's a good comparison. I don't believe in engaging in war to stop the dehumanizing tactics of war. I do believe that the feminist position is that war is always a human rights violation and that rape is a war crime just shy of the murder of innocents.

[stevenleser]

14. I think in the responses to you, you can see the lingering damage caused by George W. Bush

There are clearly humanitarian reasons to go to war. After day 5 in Rwanda, we should have gone to war and stopped it. 800,000 people were killed in 100 days in that genocide. We probably could have stopped the deaths of 700,000+ of those people with minimal casualties inflicted.

Because of George W. Bush, there is no possibility that the left in this country will accept the idea of a humanitarian war for a long time. The US will have to stand idly by while these kinds of things happen because false equivalencies will be raised.

Every country has natural resources of SOME kind. Any suggested humanitarian action will be termed as a grab for those resources. Every justification would be challenged as a smokescreen. As I said, false equivalencies to Iraq are the norm on the left now.

I think that what the Taliban in Afghanistan were doing to women justified a war to remove them before 9/11 even came about. Of course, Bush had no interest in those issues and did little to nothing to stop them with that war during his tenure.

[Dash87]

15. There is also the fact that we seldom do more good than harm on "police action" missions.

Look at the mess we're making in Afghanistan right now, and the mess we made in Iraq. The reason humanitarian wars have been ruined in the US is because we're terrible at them.

To stay on topic in this OP, I don't think so, because war as a means to end cultural oppression (such as misogynistic attitudes) is impossible.

[stevenleser]

16. I wouldn't call either Afghanistan or Iraq a humanitarian or a police action.

Afghanistan was to try and get as many of the Al Qaeda folks associated with 9/11 as possible.

Iraq was for a myriad of ugly reasons covered up by a lie.

The last major US Humanitarian military mission I can remember was Haiti under Clinton and that turned out pretty well.

[Dash87]

17. Fair enough, but Afghanistan is partly "nation building," which is similar.

We aren't doing the "building" part of it very well. Iraq was also partly a "nation building" mission, but that nation is in shambles.

Based on that, I can only guess how badly we would screw Syria up.