Recently in Iraq War Category

My friend Ben Brown has been on a very unique road trip. Essentially he is traveling around the country with a bombed out car from Iraq, parking it, and recording folks' reactions. Here's the summary from the site:

He [artist Jeremy Deller] will travel aboard an RV with Esam Pasha, artist and formerly a translator for the Chief Advisor in the British Embassy of Baghdad and for American forces around Iraq; and Jonathan Harvey, a veteran of the Iraq war and recently demobilized PSYOP specialist. They will park in public sites to hold conversations about Iraq. Visitors are encouraged to bring objects related to Iraq, and to participate in conversations with Pasha and Harvey.

Esam Pasha and Jonathan Harvey were selected by the artist, Creative Time, and the New Museum from a wide pool of applicants interested in the project. The destroyed car on view during the project's installation at the New Museum will be placed on a flatbed trailer and hitched to the RV. As an artist who consistently privileges the concerns of social history, Deller is interested in providing a platform for discussion. The car on view in New York and on the road will be a visual aid to prompt open dialog and unrestricted conversation. When the project arrives in Los Angeles, it will be on view at the Hammer Museum until mid-May.

Here's a video that Ben made along the way:

They're nearing the end of their adventure, so be sure to check out the work. It's an amazing and, in a lot of ways, overwhelming model of bringing many different art mediums, community dialogue, and documentary work together. It's got my feminist wheels churning...what would it be like to do a similar road trip with an artifact from a bombed abortion clinic or a giant container of the 13,000 rape kits still untested in LA County?

Go check out Courtney's newest column at the American Prospect about the need for female veterans who are sexual assault survivors and are suffering PTSD to be classified as disabled and eligible for services.

It makes a certain amount of sense that the Veterans Affairs Office is compelled to differentiate combat from non-combat veterans. Those who have been exposed to improvised explosive devices (IEDs), the stress of direct negotiation, and the trials of patrol on a daily basis certainly have a higher rate of PTSD and other disabilities following their tour than those who have not. But it's not a zero-sum game. When the sexual assault rates among female veterans are so astronomically high -- at least 30, and as high as 70 percent, according to Helen Benedict, author of the new book The Lonely Soldier -- the "combat" classification becomes a moot point. Keep in mind that sexual assault is a hugely underreported crime; even the Pentagon admits that only 10 to 20 percent of cases are probably being reported.

Add to this the reality that military culture is built on breaking down some of our most basic psychological instincts through humiliation, deprivation, and submission, and it becomes less and less logical to separate the soldiers who have seen combat from those who haven't. Everyone who signs his or her name on the dotted line of a military contract is destined for psychological trauma of one kind or another, especially if they're female.

I think this point of the culture of humiliation, deprivation and submission is not only a helpful frame in understanding the culture within the military, but also in thinking about the mindset that motivates the military to then create those types of conditions amongst the communities we are warring with be it via prisons or the use of rape as a weapon of war. It seems logical to us that a US military culture that demands a certain level of emasculation, would create, produce and sustain a culture of sexual violence.

Check out community poster ArmyVetJen's take (who beat us to the punch) on the new statistics just released by the Pentagon showing that there has been a 9% increase in the reports of sexual assault in the military over the past year. AP reports:

The Pentagon said it received 2,923 reports of sexual assault across the military in the 12 months ending Sept. 30 2008. That's about a 9 percent increase over the totals reported the year before, but only a fraction of the crimes presumably being committed.

Among the cases reported, only a small number went to military courts, officials acknowledged.

The Pentagon office that collects the data estimates that only 10 percent to 20 percent of sexual assaults among members of the active duty military are reported -- a figure similar to estimates of reported cases in the civilian sphere.

The military statistics, required by Congress, cover rape and other assaults across the approximately 1.4 million people in uniform.

The director of the Pentagon's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office says that the increase in reports is likely due to more women feeling confident enough to come forward rather than attributing it to an actual increase in sexual violence. While that would be great, as Cara says, there hasn't been any reported increase in awareness around sexual assault by the Pentagon so I'm not inclined to immediately buy that contention. (Also considering prosecutions are still low as ever.)

Reports in Iraq and Afghanistan have rose by about a quarter. You can find the report here. Feministe also has more.

In an effort for women to regain footing in Iraqi government and decision-making, it has become a requirement for every 3rd elected seat in Iraq to be held by a woman. As a result, 4000 women will be running in this year's election.

Nibras al-Mamuri is a secular female candidate who argues that fundamentalists have taken over the country. She says it was the 2005 elections that brought them into power and tarnished Islam's image in Iraq.

Al-Mamuri, who is running for the Baghdad provincial council, says it's time for a change.

As we have discussed before and as the article concludes, the US-led invasion of Iraq has made conditions for women worse.

In recent years, Iraqi women have been targeted by extremists for a variety of reasons -- from not covering their hair to entering the political arena.

Under Hussein, Iraq was one of the more secular Arab countries, but the 2003 U.S. invasion unleashed extremist militias. Now, many activists say women have been forced back to the Dark Ages, forced to be submissive, anonymous and fully veiled.

Al-Mamuri said she believes Saturday's vote can help women improve their position in society.

via CNN.

Related:
The Military's disingenuous talking points on women's rights.

I was glad to see that the New York Times is continuing their important coverage of veteran issues, especially when it comes to violence stateside. Sunday they ran a story about the Army's major domestic violence problem.

This piece continued their commitment to reporting on the ways in which veterans' families have born the brunt of much of their PTSD problems. In February, they gave a deep and broad view of the emotional and physical violence characterizing so many families lives when a loved one returns from war. Prior to the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Pentagon had committed to revamping the military response to domestic violence (there has been a rash of "wife-killings" that prompted response). But as task force members told reporters, the huge surge in violence both overseas and upon returning home, has complicated their efforts.

Complications are inevitable, but there is simply no excuse for not providing veterans' and their families the counseling they need. For example, USA Today reported last week that there are currently one drug counselor for every 3,100 soldiers; this at a time when the soldiers seeking help has skyrocketed by 25% in the last five years.

I think the Pentagon could learn a lot from feminists. When will the government commit to an intersectional analysis of what veterans and their families are experiencing, both in war and after? Violence, addiction, rape and sexual assault, suicide, PTSD etc. are all intimately connected afflictions. We have a moral obligation to bring this kind of sophisticated analysis to veterans' healing.

For more, check out my column from yesterday over at TAP on veteran's affairs and Michelle Obama.

There are many misperceptions about the role of women in the Iraq war. We have written about the role and rate of sexual violence in the military and this is an interesting radio interview with a several women that have served in the Iraq war. It goes into the role of women in the military and in combat, specifically debunking the assumption that women don't engage in combat or security. It also includes a call from a listener who asks if we as Americans want "our" women having the potential threat of being POWs and what that means to which Kristen Holmstedt replies that she doesn't feel women's bodies are any more valuable as POW's as men's. I think this is really really interesting.

While we talk about women and war, one listener asks, "why are we glorifying war?" So while we can on one-hand fight for the rights of women in war, it is always important to step back and think about what we are actually supporting. I know most of us anti-war folks do, but it is a slippery slope from full inclusion and equitable treatment for all constituents in the military to working for an end to the war in Iraq.

Finally I was waiting patiently for them to bring up sexual trauma in the military and towards the end they get into it and one woman speaks frankly about her experience with sexual harassment in the military and how the military dealt with it. Really upsetting.

Check it out here and let me know what you think.

Sorry to conflate two issues, because in the same breath that I was going to post something for Veteran's Day to remind us of the soldiers in Iraq and that we must hold a new administration accountable to get them the fuck out, this article popped up on my screen, and, well, it is really not cool.

We were outraged to find out Palin allowed rape victims to be charged for their own rape kits, but we didn't know she learned how to do it from the Pentagon. According to Penny Coleman at Alternet, TRICARE, the Pentagon's healthcare plan doesn't cover rape kits either.

Currently, forensic examinations are not covered for beneficiaries in civilian health care facilities through TRICARE medical plans because TRICARE "may cost share only medically or psychologically necessary services or supplies. Forensic examinations are not conducted for medical treatment purposes, but for the preservation of evidence in any future criminal investigation and/or prosecution."

The decision to treat rape kits as purely evidentiary, ignoring the very real medical and psychological benefits to the victim, is reprehensibly primitive thinking. Making sure that those legislative changes happen as planned would be a long overdue step out of the primal ooze that has slimed our military in the eyes of our citizens and the world.

Disgusting.

This Veteran's Day I am remembering one of the thousands of women who served.

Pfc. LaVena Johnson was killed on July 19, 2005 in Iraq.

The cause of her death is still being questioned.

Her murder and the lack of information about it touch more than just those of us from her hometown.

As the nation pauses in remembrance this Veteran's Day let us not forget.

In our excitement over the hope inspired by our recent election...may we not lose sight of the questions still in need of answers.

And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.
Aeschylus

For more information about Pfc. Johnson and the investigation into her death visit LavenaJohnson.com.

For a woman to be a high ranking police chief in Afghanistan is in fact a profound statement and considerable gain for women. So it is a statement that the Taliban assassinated one of the top female police officers in the country. An anti-woman statement.

The police officer, Malalai Kakar, who was in her mid-40s with six children, was an iconic figure among women's groups in Afghanistan and abroad. Often profiled in the Afghan and foreign news media, she was one of the leading totems for the wider freedoms gained by women when the Taliban, with their repressive policies toward women, were ousted from power by an American-led coalition in 2001.

Yesterday the House held a hearing on sexual assault in the military, a topic we've written on repeatedly. Not just the insanely and disturbingly high rates of sexual assault, but the effect is has on female vets.

Rep. Louise Slaughter reintroduced the Military Domestic and Sexual Violence Response Act, which would establish an Office of Victims Advocate within the Department of Defense and hopefully improve efforts to respond to cases of sexual violence and harassment in the military.

At the hearing, sexual assault survivor Ingrid Torres testified. What an incredibly brave woman:

"The road after sexual assault is a long and challenging one. As is typical of violent crime, I suffer from PTSD, violent nightmares, and depression. I still wake in the night, he still comes after me in my dreams... Because of the impending courts martial, I was advised not to talk openly about the case, which caused rumors and misconceptions to run rampant. There was no escaping it and no making it better. The hostility grew with my silence...Ultimately, our society still publicly and privately tries the victims in sexual assault cases. Rape is the only crime where the victim has to prove their innocence."

RH Reality Check has more.

In other congressional news, yesterday the House passed the Paycheck Fairness Act. Bush has vowed to veto the legislation. Because he likes making $1 to your 76 cents, dammit.

Sexualized violence comes with the territory of war. It is an age old tactic and also a byproduct of the pressure of war and the insistence on overt misogyny. So it is no surprise that according to the AP 15 percent of women that have served have experienced some form of sexual trauma. That shouldn't make it any less revolting.

Of the women veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan who have walked into a VA facility, 15 percent have screened positive for military sexual trauma, The Associated Press has learned. That means they indicated that while on active duty they were sexually assaulted, raped, or were sexually harassed, receiving repeated unsolicited verbal or physical contact of a sexual nature.

Rape is clearly not only a weapon of war, but a byproduct of it creating an internal dysfunction within the military industrial complex.

via AP and ThinkProgess.

And sign this petition. Tomorrow is the three-year anniversary of LaVena Johnson's death (on July 19), which was ruled a suicide but was, in all likelihood, a rape and murder.

Phillip Barron has been working incredibly hard to bring attention to her case. And you may have read about LaVena recently on Feministing, or from Cara, Megan at Jezebel, Gina at What About Our Daughters, and Kate at Broadsheet,.

Retired Army Col. Ann Wright explains what we all want investigated:

From the day their daughter's body was returned to them, the parents had grave suspicions about the Army's investigation into Lavena's death and the characterization of her death as suicide. In charge of a communications facility, Lavena was able to call home daily. In those calls she gave no indication of emotional problems or being upset. In a letter to her parents, Lavena's commanding officer Captain David Woods wrote: "Lavena was clearly happy and seemed in very good health both physically and emotionally."

In viewing his daughter's body at the funeral home, Dr. Johnson was concerned about the bruising on her face. He was puzzled by the discrepancy in the autopsy report on the location of the gunshot wound. As a US Army veteran and a 25-year US Army civilian employee who had counseled veterans, he was mystified how the exit wound of an M-16 shot could be so small. The hole in Lavena's head appeared to be more the size of a pistol shot rather than an M-16 round. He questioned why the exit hole was on the left side of her head, when she was right handed. But the gluing of military uniform white gloves onto Lavena's hands hiding burns on one of her hands is what deepened Dr. Johnson's concerns that the Army's investigation into the death of his daughter was flawed.

They glued the white gloves onto her hands to hide burns. A literal cover-up. It's so clear that this and other details of LaVena's case don't add up to suicide. And it's sadly not exactly far-fetched that she was sexually assaulted: A full one-third of women veterans report rape or attempted rape during their time in the military. So it's important to keep the pressure on Congress and the military to open an investigation into her death. For LaVena, yes. Absolutely. But also for other military women whose rapes and murders have been covered up. Wright writes,

The military has characterized each of the deaths of women who were first sexually assaulted as deaths from "non-combat related injuries," and then added "suicide." Yet, the families of the women whom the military has declared to have committed suicide, strongly dispute the findings and are calling for further investigations into the deaths of their daughters. Specific US Army units and certain US military bases in Iraq have an inordinate number of women soldiers who have died of "non-combat related injuries," with several identified as "suicides."

Please sign that petition today. There may also be a legal fund established in the near future. We'll keep you posted.

Is this some kind of comic book? A woman in Iraq protested by holding up a naked picture of a woman in front of her while dressed in hijab. She was making a statement against the US soldier use of x-ray machines to look under female clothing to ensure they are not strapped with explosives.

Jaberi explained that she was protesting her treatment while going through the various security checkpoints on the way to her job at the Iraqi parliament building. It was the scan that Jaberi particularly objected to, because, she said, guards are essentially able to see a woman naked as she stands in the scanning booth. The picture she displayed actually looks like a naked female alien, blue-tinted and bald, because the scanner doesn't see hair or clothing. What it sees is the body itself, plus the dark outline of any jewelry or, presumably, any concealed weapon.

Hmm, sounds a little creepy right?

via NPR.

Last month the NY Times reported that the Defense Department fed talking points to former generals who appeared on cable news. Now the DoD has released a lot of those talking points to the public. Alyssa Rosenberg went through the documents, and found that a number of them instruct the generals to trumpet all the awesome stuff the U.S. military is doing for women in Iraq and Afghanistan -- painting people like Donald Rumsfeld as some sort of savior for downtrodden women all over the world, and conveniently downplaying things like sexual assault by U.S. soldiers.

The talking points actually included this awful story:

Except for this one, from September 23, 2004: "Sally's children were taken away from her more than six months ago. Her husband beat her. Her brother threatened her life while holding a gun to her head. Her own father contracted her deal with a $5,000 reward. Sally, an Iraqi translator, lost everything by working to help Americans rebuild Iraq. Still, she feels her service with Americans is the right thing for her country. ‘I lost everything I have, but I have gained so much,' Sally said. ‘If I had to do it over again I would. I help the Americans help my people.'"

Rosenberg writes,

The anecdote is meant to be an illustration of how much Iraqis love their American liberators; but given how Iraqi translators have been abandoned by the Americans they helped, it's a grotesquely ironic PR ploy.

Almost five years after the Defense Department promoted Sally's story, domestic violence in Iraq is skyrocketing, female illiteracy rates are 10 times higher than they were in the 1980s, and in the past few months more than 40 women--and in two cases their children--have been murdered for defying dress codes. I wonder if Sally still feels like working for Americans was worth it.

After it became clear there were no WMD in Iraq, the Bush administration began using things like women's rights as a reason for its violent occupation of another country. And now that this war has dragged on for five years -- and women's rights in Iraq and Afghanistan have clearly deteriorated, not improved -- it's all the more infuriating to look back and see how military spokespeople (even though they weren't identified as such) used women to justify the war.

For more on the state of women's rights in Iraq -- not filtered through DoD talking points -- check out Women for Women's 2008 Iraq report (PDF). (via)

From a recent performance at The Whitney Biennial. Photo by Eduardo Aparicio.

Coco Fusco is a New York-based interdisciplinary artist and writer. She is the author of English is Broken Here: Notes on Cultural Fusion in the Americas, and editor of Corpus Delecti: Performance Art of the Americas, and Only Skin Deep: Changing Visions of the American Self (with Brian Wallis). Her work on military interrogation was selected for the 2008 Whitney Biennial.

"In the guise of a CIA manual, Coco Fusco's provocative A Field Guide for Female Interrogators offers an unflinching look at women's role in the military and at America's use of torture in the War on Terror"-- (from the book's back cover copy).

Here's Coco...

Last week the U.S. Board on Geographic Names voted to to rename Squaw Peak in Arizona for Lori Piestewa, the Hopi woman who was killed in combat in Iraq in March 2003. Cecelia notes that because the word "squaw" has long been used to denigrate Native women, the name change to honor Piestewa is especially welcome.

From a Rolling Stone profile of Piestewa:

The attack made Jessica Lynch famous. U.S. Special Forces later plucked her from an Iraqi hospital and rushed her to safety, and the media seized on the daring rescue to create a tale of American heroism and valor. But the real story of what happened in Nasiriyah that day -- and the clear warning it offered of things to come -- involves a different soldier, one who gave her life to protect her friends. Lori Piestewa, born and raised a Hopi on the Navajo reservation in Arizona, became the first American woman to die in the war, and the first Native American woman ever to die in combat on foreign soil. Only twenty-three years old, Piestewa saw herself as a Hopi warrior, part of a centuries-old tradition developed by a people who once resisted an invasion and occupation by the U.S. military -- much as the Iraqis are doing today. She went to war, but she believed above all in peace, in doing no harm to others. "I'm not trying to be a hero," she told a friend just before the invasion. "I just want to get through this crap and go home."

Karen Houppert reports for The Nation about the rape of a paramedic working for defense contractor KBR in Iraq. The details of both the incident and the response are truly nauseating. This is shameful stuff. (Trigger warning -- more below the jump.)

Allison Kilkenny describes herself as "a political humorist, a fancy way of saying writer, who makes shitty world news funny." She is a regular contributor to the Huffington Post, The Beast, Alternet.org's Wiretap Magazine, and Timothy McSweeney's. Her work has appeared on The Nation and SIRIUS radio.

Here's Allison Kilkenny...

Please, if you have a chance check out the Youth Blog-a-thon hosted by YO! and Wiretap Magazine. It is some of the dopest, fiercest youth writing and the topic this month is violence, both in Iraq and in our everyday lives. Support youth voices and go give them some Feministing style love!

The fabulous organization MADRE has released a statement on women and violence in Iraq. It's really a must-read. MADRE also lists resources for perspectives of Iraqi women, so get on over there.

Dana B. of CodePink shows us how it's done, in front of the military recruiting center in Manhattan.

The LA Times had an great opinion piece on Wednesday with the following headline, "Does a rapist deserve a military burial?"

Hmmm, let me think about it a minute...No.

James Allen Selby was a rapist. He raped and assaulted at least 12 women (not including a 9-year old girl). In October 2004, he was convicted on 27 counts, which included armed robbery, rape, kidnapping and attempted murder (for slitting the throat of one of the women). Hours before his sentencing, he hung himself in a Tuscan, AZ jail.

James Allen Selby was also a Persian Gulf War veteran. So in respect to Pentagon policy, he was buried with full military honors. Anne K. Ream, author of the opinion piece, wrote:

The military policy of allowing honors burials for veterans convicted of rape sends a chilling message to victims: Even the most heinous sexual violence does not trump prior military service. It is a position that is as ethically indefensible as it is inconsistent. In 1997, after Army veteran Timothy McVeigh was sentenced to death for his role in the Oklahoma City bombings, Congress barred veterans convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death or life in prison from being buried with full military honors. Veterans convicted of rape or any other violent crime, however, encounter no such restrictions.

'By honoring those that do not deserve it, we dishonor those who do,' Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) said during 1997 hearings on the policy. McVeigh, he said, 'was worthy of honor at one time, but he is no longer worthy of honor.' Surely the same can be said of Selby. [Emphasis mine]

Just like the KBR cover-up rape case, this is showing not only the pardoning of military and government-related rape crimes, but also how these crimes are simply not dealt with and swept under the rug. Ream ends the piece:

In the wake of mass violation of women and girls during the conflicts in Kosovo and Rwanda, rape and sexual violence were for the first time codified as distinct crimes under international law. How telling then, and how troubling, that our country's policy on military burials is at odds with international standards the United States worked to establish.

But should we really be surprised?

The front page article of the Sunday times delved into a multi-part series about veterans from Afghanistan and Iraq and the violent crimes they have committed since their return. According to the Times, 121 returned veterans have committed a killing since their return. Most of the victims have been their spouses or their children.

The New York Times found 121 cases in which veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan committed a killing in this country, or were charged with one, after their return from war. In many of those cases, combat trauma and the stress of deployment — along with alcohol abuse, family discord and other attendant problems — appear to have set the stage for a tragedy that was part destruction, part self-destruction.

Three-quarters of these veterans were still in the military at the time of the killing. More than half the killings involved guns, and the rest were stabbings, beatings, strangulations and bathtub drownings. Twenty-five offenders faced murder, manslaughter or homicide charges for fatal car crashes resulting from drunken, reckless or suicidal driving.

About a third of the victims were spouses, girlfriends, children or other relatives, among them 2-year-old Krisiauna Calaira Lewis, whose 20-year-old father slammed her against a wall when he was recuperating in Texas from a bombing near Falluja that blew off his foot and shook up his brain.

If we haven't already exhausted the reasons for why we should not be at war right now, let this be one of the issues that comes to the forefront of national attention. It is clear that the costs of war are more than the massive debt we have incurred or the horrendous damage we have done overseas, but also includes the use, abuse and disposal of young men and women, turning them into killing machines, that have little chance for normalcy afterwards. There is a line I always remember from Fahrenheit 9/11 where Michael Moore talks about how the first ones to go to war are usually the last ones to benefit from its outcomes. Young, working class men and women, young people of color, are being dragged to war, as pawns in our bizarrely maniacal, illegal attempt at imperialistic domination, while their communities continue to suffer even greater consequences.

Shortly after a Texas woman came forward stating that she was gang raped by her Halliburton/KBR co-workers in Baghdad, we find that (shockingly) she may not be alone.

Three other women have come forward with testimonies of sexual harassment and rape by co-workers, including one who was fired shortly after making it clear she felt uncomfortable that her rapist was still able to work alongside her.

While Jamie Leigh Jones, the first woman to come forward, and others are suing the company, they have to comply with a statement they signed at hiring that forces them to settle disputes through private arbitration. Jones stated:

"What is to stop these companies from victimizing women in the future? . . . The U.S. government has to provide people with their day in court when they have been raped and assaulted by other American citizens. Otherwise we are not only deprived of our justice in the criminal courts but in the civil courts as well. The laws have left us nowhere to turn."

Check out TortDeform's Kia Franklin's take on this bullshit and the legal ramifications for women of mandatory binding arbitration.

The lack of security in Iraq continues to astound as does the subsequent rise of woman hate that has been inspired due to the upsurge of Shiite vigilantes. You know, using Islam as a cover up for generic woman hate.

Via.

Religious vigilantes have killed at least 40 women this year in the southern Iraqi city of Basra because of how they dressed, their mutilated bodies found with notes warning against "violating Islamic teachings," the police chief said Sunday.

Maj. Gen. Jalil Khalaf blamed sectarian groups that he said were trying to impose a strict interpretation of Islam. They dispatch patrols of motorbikes or unlicensed cars with tinted windows to accost women not wearing traditional dress and head scarves, he added.

"The women of Basra are being horrifically murdered and then dumped in the garbage with notes saying they were killed for un-Islamic behavior," Khalaf told The Associated Press. He said men with Western clothes or haircuts are also attacked in Basra, an oil-rich city some 30 miles from the Iranian border and 340 miles southeast of Baghdad.

Our fight against the war in Iraq is a feminist issue, you already know that, but this is why. It is an especially disgusting form of woman hate that unleashes itself under dire circumstances, oppressive conditions and in war torn regions of the world.

Prepare to seethe.

Amidst the sexual harassment, the rape, the murder, and the the homelessness, feminism, out of all things, has resulted in the demoralization of the military.

According to this gem, sexual harassment charges are used as a "tool of some women to promote their own agendas," women are also apparently getting pregnant left and right (if that were true, that'd change if they had access to EC) so they can become reckless single mothers, or because their primary purpose of joining the military and potentially risking their lives in Iraq is to find a hubby. That one is my favorite.

So does anyone want to enlist with me after work today? My "visceral drive to capture a lifemate" is kicking in.

From NPR:

Sixty-one women in the U.S. military have been killed by hostile fire in Iraq — more than twice as many female casualties suffered since women were allowed to join the military after World War II. The number indicates that women are playing new roles in combat zones.

Listen to the segment here.

This is a case that I just haven't been able to stop thinking about.

LaVena Johnson died in Iraq on July 19, 2005. The seemingly happy and healthy 19-year old Private First Class soldier was found dead by a gunshot wound with bruising, a dislocated shoulder, an indication that someone tried to set her body on fire, and a number of other signs including a blood trail outside of the tent she was found in. But despite all of these factors, the U.S. Army declared that her death was caused by suicide and shut the case quietly.

Although the Johnson family have been desperately trying to get her case reopened, the Army has refused. Shocking, I know.

LaVena's father, Dr. John Johnson, believes that his daughter was murdered, and that the murder was connected to sexual assault. Check out his speech talking about LaVena's case:

Sign the petition and/or contact your representative to get LaVena's case reopened. Now.

You can also find out more at Shakes and Reclusive Leftist.

Good stuff. This has apparently been an ongoing story in Trudeau's most recent strips.

Big ups to Sarah D.

Seriously, read it and then you totally have the right to go throw up.

My favorite excuse for why suicide bombers do what they do is to have an orgy. I mean, I am sure commitment to their cause (problematic as it may be) or defying Western imperialism, has nothing to do with it. It is all the sex they will have in heaven.

More at The Curvature.

Thanks to Angela for the link.

This is pretty sweet. Concerned Women for America lashes out at Code Pink for not being demure and ladylike enough. How dare they wear pink, the color of quiet femininity, while aggressively demanding an end to the war?!

[Crouse] said Code Pink members "talk out of both sides of their mouths."

"They emphasize their femininity but advocate policies that are very aggressive and more often associated with men," she said.

Does CWA really think pro-peace positions have been historically associated with masculinity? Did I miss the part of the recent Republican debates when all the manly-man candidates were clamoring to assert their commitment to peace? I mean, sure, I'd love to see conservatives (and everyone, really) saying the peace is a strong and masculine goal to work towards. Don't see that happening any time soon, though.

"They cloak it all in a soft pink covering, when underneath they are hard as nails," [Crouse] said. "They advocate for the most radical of leftist positions," such as impeachment of the president.

Sounds like an awesome compliment.

via RightWingWatch, which notes that "Back in 1998, of course, Concerned Women for America called for the impeachment of President Clinton." Who's talking out of both sides of their mouth?

One of the less talked about side effects of the unjust and continued US led military campaign in Iraq is the subsequent displacement of people, mostly women and children, that are forced to flee from persecution and become refugees in neighboring countries. According to a study produced by the United Nations, the current number of refugees world-wide has risen for the first time in 5 years.

The total number of refugees rose by more than 14% last year to nearly 10 million, the UN refugee agency says. The number of internally displaced people also reached a record high of almost 13 million, the report says. Besides Iraq, conflicts in Lebanon, East Timor, Sudan and Sri Lanka were blamed for the rise in refugee numbers.

Furthermore, this doesn't include the 4.3million Palestinians currently displaced as well.

The report said the conflict in Iraq was largely responsible for the rise. Some 1.5m Iraqis are now estimated to be living as refugees in other countries, mostly neighbouring Syria and Jordan.

Considering that the next largest group of refugees are from Afghanistan, I think it is pretty safe to say that US military campaigns, not only kill people, but also displace them. But the bigger question for me is, what are the consequences of this displacement? What happens to people when they are forced to leave the place they know as home, go homeless, run in fear and look for protection from neighboring states, where the economy can rarely sustain them?

While our "leaders" sit pretty with greedy fists full of food.

via BBC.

“U.S. Presence in Iraq Promotes Muslim Feminism.�

That was the title of this FOX news piece by former Lt. Oliver North (conservative crook turned conservative rock star) for Mother’s Day yesterday, whose interpretation of “Muslim Feminism� is (shocker) the protection of Iraqi women by U.S. occupancy:

“Mother's Day. It’s a wonderful occasion for Ms. Pelosi and her comrades in Congress to reflect on what will happen to millions of Muslim women if Congress pulls the plug on their protectors.�

Because if anyone knows what’s best for Iraqi women, it’s someone who puts the term women’s rights in quotes.

Now, let’s look at a real feminist presence in Iraq.

The fabulous Guernica magazine has an interview up with Iraqi feminist Yanar Mohammed, founder of the Organization for Women’s Freedom in Iraq (OWFI): "First Victims of Freedom." Read it. Trust me.

Shorter Kathleen Parker: Women in the military are raped because they're stupid enough to be around men.

Oh, and the ladies are probably exaggerating anyway. No, seriously. Check out these gems:

No serious person doubts that sexual harassment and even rape occur in a war zone. But the degree to which sex is consensual or forced -- often a question of he-said-she-said -- is further complicated by military hierarchy and the extenuating circumstances (and passions) of war.

...Clearly, some of what is considered sexual harassment falls into the category of harmless sport -- the usual towel-snapping that is, in fact, a way to neutralize sex.

This one is my all-time fave though:

But more overt sexual aggression may be the product of something few will acknowledge, at least on the record: resentment.

Off the record, in dozens of interviews over a period of years, male soldiers and officers have confided that many men resent women because they've been forced to pretend that women are equals, and men know they're not.

And clearly, the best way to put us bitches back in our place is with a good raping, huh?

Contributed by Courtney Martin

"The Women’s War," Sara Corbett’s heartbreaking and exhaustively researched account of the psychological fallout for female soldiers in the Iraq War is filled with the kind of revelations that make you first go, “holy shit� and then, immediately “well, of course.�

Holy shit, one-third of a nationwide sample of female veterans said they experienced rape or attempted rape during their service. Well, of course rape is rampant in a war zone based on humiliation, sexism, and blind submission to authority. (Hell, rape is rampant everywhere.)

Holy shit, female soldiers are more likely to be diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder, sometimes at twice the rate of male soldiers. Well, of course women exposed to the “double whammy,� as Patricia Resick calls it, of sexual trauma and exposure to combat are coming home with some serious mental health issues. Though the 160,000 female soldiers that have been deployed in Iraq often are in roles technically classified as “combat-support,� the violence of this war is ubiquitous. (There were just 7,500 females who served in Vietnam and 41,000 who served in the gulf war.)

Holy shit, the Department of Defense isn’t doing anything to support these women: of the 3,038 investigations of military sexual assault charges in 2004 and 2005, only 329 have resulted in a court-martial of the perpetrator.� Well, of course the government isn’t taking responsibility. Just like they’re not taking responsibility for the rampant brain injuries resulting from this new kind of warfare or the civilian casualties or the lies that got us into this war in the first place or the…you get the point. Kudos to Corbett on this incredibly important story.

Picture via Reuters.

As we’re approaching the fourth anniversary since we invaded Iraq, thousands marched in D.C. on Saturday to protest the war.

Other protests were held in San Francisco, San Diego and Hartford, Connecticut, where more than a thousand people gathered, while tens of thousands gathered in Madrid to protest as well as call for the closing of the prison for terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay.

Let’s hope this coming anniversary will be the last.

My colleague Kay has a post up over at TAPPED about the guilty pleas from the two U.S. soldiers who raped and killed 14-year-old Abeer Qassim al-Janabi. Their truly disturbing testimony comes at a time when Iraqi politicians are rushing to politicize the allegations by 20-year-old Sabrine al-Janabi that she was sexually assaulted by Iraqi security forces.

See also: Robin Morgan's Rape, Murder and the American G.I.

Laura Hershey’s parents didn’t listen to her doctors’ assumptions that spinal muscular atrophy would end her life when she was a child. Forty-four years later, Laura is still here, and isn’t planning on going anywhere.

Laura Hershey is a consultant, published writer/researcher, and committed advocate who has 20+ years experience as an activist for disability rights. You can read Laura’s writing at Crip Commentary, a web site she runs that discusses various aspects of disability rights. She’s currently pursuing her MFA in Creative Writing.

I spoke with Laura from her home in California. Here’s Laura…

Yesterday when Condoleezza Rice appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to ask for money to fund the escalation in Iraq, Senator Barbara Boxer asked her,

Who pays the price? I’m not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old and my grandchild is too young. You’re not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families. And I just want to bring us back to that fact.�

Rice (and the White House) claim Boxer was saying Rice wasn't personally affected by the war because she's a single, childless woman:

“I thought it was O.K. to be single,� Ms. Rice said. “I thought it was O.K. to not have children, and I thought you could still make good decisions on behalf of the country if you were single and didn’t have children.�

You're right, Condi! It is! But if you really think it's okay not to have or want children, you shouldn't be working for an administration that wants to deny women at home and abroad access to family planning. Of course conservatives, who have been enacting anti-woman policies for years, are quick to seize the opportunity to call Boxer an anti-feminist:

“I don’t know if she was intentionally tacky,� Mr. Snow said in an interview on Fox News. “It’s a great leap backward for feminism.�

Thanks for the head's up! Glad he's letting us know who's good for feminism and who isn't. After all, he and his bosses have been nothing short of fanatical in their pursuit of women's rights, and we should value their opinion on this matter. Rush Limbaugh managed to have an even crazier interpretation, deftly making this a nuanced discussion of race and gender:

"Here you have a rich white chick with a huge, big mouth, trying to lynch this, an African-American woman, right before Martin Luther King Day, hitting below the ovaries here,� Mr. Limbaugh said on his radio show.

Ha. Last time I checked, Condi Rice was a pretty rich chick herself. Boxer's comments had nothing to do with race. And when did conservatives like Limbaugh become such ardent defenders of Martin Luther King Day?

They're doing what they always accuse liberals of: making an unrelated story all about gender and race. Thing is, when we get upset about this stuff, the quotes are offensive -- just ask Tony "Tar Baby" Snow. (See for yourself how Fox News is spinning Boxer's comments. Completely ridiculous.)

Isn't it obvious that conservatives are using a nonexistant confrontation between childless women and mothers to distract from the serious opposition Rice faced at the hearing -- and from Bush's flailing failings in Iraq?

As your typical defender of women who choose to be childless, I diligently searched Boxer's comments for something that might piss me off. But I couldn't see it. Maybe she could have said in a more straightforward manner, "Neither of us have immediate family members in Iraq," without mentioning her kids. But really Boxer was just making a classic anti-war argument -- one that chickenhawks have a hard time responding to -- that the people who make the wars are totally out of touch with the people who pay the price.

I resent the fact that conservatives are playing feminist police as a way to distract us from the fact that they've killed a whole lot of people in Iraq and want the authorization to kill even more.

Our girl Celina has a must-read up at Alternet today, For Female Soldiers, Sexual Assault Remains a Danger.

Check it out.

The number of deaths of U.S. soldiers in Iraq has hit (and passed) the 3,000 mark.

I wonder what our nation's resolution should be this year...

Retired teacher, Helen Nichols from Nebraska, decided recently to let out all of her frustrations against George W. Bush in a book. It’s titled, Open Letter to George W. Bush: Including a Great Number of Select Quotations.

She’s onto her second book as we speak. Here’s Helen…

There was an AP piece yesterday that discussed the post-traumatic stress that many women soldiers experience after returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. While we’re all too aware of the disturbing patterns of sexism, discrimination and assault that occur within the military, what comes afterwards is a whole other story.

Much of the article -- not surprisingly -- focuses on the pressures of returning to role of caretaker of the family (while not recognizing that not all women soldiers are mothers and/or wives), but it was interesting to see the ways in which women with families cope with their emotional distress when back to the reality of their lives back home.

To start, sexual assault is a large factor in women’s emotional stress post-service:

Mental health experts say one of the biggest contributors to psychological problems for women in uniform is military sexual trauma - a term that covers verbal harassment and physical assault, which is a strong risk factor for PTSD.

Studies conducted by the VA health system vary, but generally about 20 percent of women report a physical assault during their service, Westrup says. ‘Unfortunately, a huge aspect of that experience is guilt and self-blame and shame on top of stress,’ she adds.

Another apparent trend is that women tend to focus on their families after returning as a kind of therapy, which (shocker) doesn’t seem to work.

Some are so determined to re-establish that bond with their children that they'll ignore their own problems, says Katherine Dong, women veterans program manager at the North Chicago VA Medical Center.

‘They want to make it up to their family for being gone, yet they have all these symptoms and all these thoughts that are still haunting them,’ she says. ‘Women tend to put their families' needs above their own. They're trying to push their bad stuff aside and focus on their families and unfortunately, it's not always successful.’

What’s angering about this piece is that there is a theme of these conflicting feelings of domestic duty vs. patriotic duty which is supposedly the main components of their post-traumatic stress. Between “having a hard time negotiating their domestic life� like having (god forbid) their husbands join their daughter’s Brownie troop and feeling the need to return to Iraq and be a good American, their ability to serve as both proves difficult.

The effects of returning to work, school or any other aspect of having a public, social or professional life is barely mentioned.

Expectations are a bitch.

Former U.S. Congresswoman and member of the Nixon Impeachment Panel, Elizabeth Holtzman, joined forces with journalist Cynthia L. Cooper to publish, The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens.

Elizabeth is the youngest woman ever elected to the U.S. Congress and won national attention for her role on the House Judiciary Committee during Watergate. Reflecting on her past experiences, and the present actions of the current administration, Elizabeth states there are many similarities between the impeachable offenses of President Nixon and President Bush.

Here’s Elizabeth…

The four soldiers that raped an Iraqi girl and then killed her whole family, are going to face court martial, two may even face death penalty. Will this actually stop the systematic use of violence against women as a weapon of war? Probably not. If anything the soldiers are probably surprised anything is happening to them at all. This type of behavior is common in a militaristic environment and considered just a nasty side effect of war.

via BBC.

The New York Times had a piece yesterday about the sixty-five women who have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, “Jane, Ye Hardly Knew You Died.�

The article also discusses the debate on women in combat as well as the number of physical and mental effects on women who survived the war. My favorite sentence on this:

“A whole crop of veterans are suffering from post-traumatic stress and lost limbs, circumstances that sometimes prove more difficult for women who often fill the role of nurturers to their families.�

Forget about working women, who will take care of the babies??

As far as women not being allowed in combat, check out Jill's post on how they essentially are in combat, just not getting the credit for it.

This is disturbing. In light of increased security to get on airplanes one woman, a breast cancer survivor, was told she could not fly with her gel filled bra on.

Humiliated cancer survivor Jean Hand claims a travel company told her she could not fly wearing her fake breast – because it posed a security risk.

Mrs Hand was close to cancelling a flight to Majorca after she was told by First Choice holidays that her gel-filled breast would need to be checked in with baggage.

The matter was resolved by airport officials, but the 57-yearold was left feeling 'horrified and humiliated'.

'The thought of having to go for hours looking like a lopsided freak filled me with horror,' she said.

As we have discussed before, these security measures are very uncomfortable and offensive for people with disabilities.

I mean at a certain point, enough is enough. Perhaps instead of being so focused on increased security (like asking people with prosthetic limbs and gel bras to take them off) we can start to look at what is causing all of this *terror*. Oh wait, then we have to figure out how the US and Britain are implicated. Well that would be a crappy hero story. *sigh*

via Metro.uk.co

Check out these two Alternet pieces that take on conditions for women in Iraq -- one concerning U.S. female soldiers, and the other on Iraqi women and sexual terrorism.

Just an update about the horrendous rape and murder of a young Iraqi woman, and the murder of her family--in which at least four U.S. soldiers are suspects. The U.S. ambassador to Iraq and the top American military commander there made an “unusual� statement apologizing to the people of Iraq for the crimes. This statement just-so-happened to be made hours after Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki said in a conference that he may request that the U.S. military to do away with immunity from Iraqi prosecution.

Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and General George W. Case made an official public apology last night, which the New York Times described as “strongly worded�:

"We understand this is painful, confusing and disturbing, not only to the family who lost a loved one, but to the Iraqi people as a whole. . . The loss of a family member can never be undone. The alleged events of that day are absolutely inexcusable and unacceptable behavior."

“The family who lost a loved one?� Wasn’t the whole family slain? The “alleged events� are “unacceptable behavior?� Yeah, real strong words. Maybe I’m just nitpicking, but they could have been referring to a kid stealing a Snickers from the candy store.

Prime Minister Maliki stated of the crime, “I’m about to talk to the multinational forces to reach solutions that will put an end to such practices. . . Our people cannot tolerate that every day there is an ugly crime such as that in Mahmudiya.�

While this is at least the fifth crime against Iraqi civilians under military investigation, it’s been said that Iraq is reacting so strongly to this particular case because the girl, who was as young as 15, was raped. According to the Times, "sexual assault is considered one of the most heinous and shameful crimes in Muslim society; even mentioning the subject is often considered taboo."

Via Broadsheet.

This interview is brought to you thanks to Sara Burke, Editor at Peacework Magazine.

Bill Weinberg, editor of the online journal World War 4 Report (ww4report.com), interviewed Houzan Mahmoud on March 21, 2006 on WBAI radio, and Peacework Magazine editor Sara Burke corresponded with her by e-mail in May. Portions of both conversations are included here. To learn more, visit Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq [OWFI] at www.equalityiniraq.com, or visit Houzan Mahmoud’s blog at http://houzanmahmoud.blogspot.com. Published in Peacework, June 2006.

Houzan Mahmoud is the Head of Iraq Freedom Congress-Abroad and one of the leading figures of the Organisation of Women’s Freedom in Iraq. Women’s organizing has been key to the development of Iraq’s secular resistance, as women know that they are the most vulnerable to persecution and repression in a militarized, Islamist nation.

Here’s Houzan…

Woah. According to one NGO, women were treated better and their rights more respected prior to the US invasion and the supposed new *democratic* government.

"We interviewed women in the country and met with local NGOs dealing with gender issues to develop this survey, which asked questions about the quality of women's life and respect for their rights," said Senar Muhammad, president of Baghdad-based NGO Woman Freedom Organisation. "The results show that women are less respected now than they were under the previous regime, while their freedom has been curtailed."

According to the survey, women's basic rights under the Hussein regime were guaranteed in the constitution and – more importantly – respected, with women often occupying important government positions. Now, although their rights are still enshrined in the national constitution, activists complain that, in practice, they have lost almost all of their rights.

And so it goes. As we have written about this before, military interventions almost always mean losses for women's rights. I love that there was so much talk of *helping* women by the US government in justifying invasion and war.

via Reuters.

You can also read more about this at Global Voices.

If you haven’t already heard about the March for Peace, Justice and Democracy, I suggest you go to the site immediately and start to prepare for some serious mobilizing.

It's scheduled for Saturday, April 29th in New York City, and is being organized by United for Peace and Justice, RainbowPUSH Coalition, National Organization for Women, Friends of the Earth, U.S. Labor Against the War, Climate Crisis Coalition, Peoples' Hurricane Relief Fund, National Youth and Student Peace Coalition, and Veterans For Peace.

The march will begin in the morning and end at Foley Square by early afternoon, where the Peace and Justice Festival will be held. The organizers were happy to recently make an agreement with city officials concerning the event as well, so hopefully all will go as planned.

So get thee to the site and donate, volunteer, or just spread the word.

I don't know how to write about this issue without first saying that I hate the military, I don't support the war in Iraq at all, and the US government allowing women and people of color to advance in the military is strategic(ally fucked) and not in *any* way indicative of an actual commitment on behalf of our leading patriarchs to advance the peoples. But these women claim to still be facing obstacles as they are clearly performing well (in gunning down Iraqis) but still not advancing in their positions.

See the military isn't any good for anything.

Despite the dangers, a growing number of women have chosen the job since the 1990s, and today about 9 percent of women in the Army are aviators.

While proving their competence in the air, female aviators say they still face obstacles from the predominantly male military on the ground.

"It's far better than when my mother was in the military, but we still have a long ways to go," said Strye, whose mother was an Army nurse in Vietnam.

And even as the 360-degree battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan are exposing women to combat as never before, policies excluding women from ground combat units have not been eased, but instead face increased scrutiny in Congress.

Okay within this system, this is an inequity. But where are we going with this? I am so distracted by the fact that this war/country/system is so fucked, I am just not that suprised that although women are totally (more than) competant at gunning down A-rabs, they may not make it to the higher ranks.

I don't know why I even tried to write about this, sorry for my pessimism.

via WaPo.

Just to keep us updated. This is a terrible situation.

via Reuters.

This is crazy:

“In a startling revelation, the former commander of Abu Ghraib prison testified that Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, former senior US military commander in Iraq, gave orders to cover up the cause of death for some female American soldiers serving in Iraq.

Last week, Col. Janis Karpinski told a panel of judges at the Commission of Inquiry for Crimes against Humanity Committed by the Bush Administration in New York that several women had died of dehydration because they refused to drink liquids late in the day. They were afraid of being assaulted or even raped by male soldiers if they had to use the women's latrine after dark.”

Alternet gives us details. I’m honestly too appalled to comment.

Broadsheet elaborates on what seems to be women being used as bait between Iraqi insurgents and US troops in this *hostage* situation.

Apparently the US Army has been kidnapping the wives of suspected insurgents to use as bait. Lovely. (So who does have bigger balls?)

As they ask,

And we wonder why Iraqi insurgents think taking a woman hostage and attempting to use her as a bargaining chip might be an effective tactic?

Hmmm.

I love these broads.

As Jessica mentioned on Tuesday, women from around the world have launched a global campaign aimed at ending the Iraq war in 2006.

Initiated by our ladies at CODEPINK, the Women Say No to War Campaign includes a number of female political leaders, military mothers, veterans, authors, actors and performers (including the kick-ass Margaret Cho -- had to mention that) who are organizing to urge for the withdrawal of foreign troops and fighters from Iraq. The first plan is to gather over 100,000 signatures by March 8th (International Women’s Day) and submit them to leaders in DC and US embassies worldwide.

Here’s a snippet of the call:

“We, the women of the United States, Iraq and women worldwide, have had enough of the senseless war in Iraq and the cruel attacks on civilians around the world. We've buried too many of our loved ones. We've seen too many lives crippled forever by physical and mental wounds. We've watched in horror as our precious resources are poured into war while our families' basic needs of food, shelter, education and healthcare go unmet. We’ve had enough of living in constant fear of violence and seeing the growing cancer of hatred and intolerance seep into our homes and communities.

This is not the world we want for ourselves or for our children. With fire in our bellies and love in our hearts, we women are rising up - across borders - to unite and demand an end to the bloodshed and the destruction."

Click here. Sign the call.

(Reminder: Men in solidarity with the message are urged to sign as well.)

This is not a new issue, we have all been skeptical of the actual experiences of women attempting to enter Iraqi politics. But these women argue that although women are given "spots" in the government their role is not being utilized.

"We seek a real role for women, not a marginal one," said Haider al-Abadi, a prominent member of Iraq's largest political coalition, the United Iraqi Alliance, a Shiite group. "Society has now accepted women in the political field. . . . We are keen for women to hold leading positions in the government."

During Saddam Hussein's 25-year reign, women did have a few opportunities to play important roles in government or elsewhere in society, but only as long as they complied with Saddam's demands to serve him and the ruling Baath Party. Women had the right to vote, for instance, but like all Iraqis could vote only for Saddam.

Yet for all the talk of shedding a history of female repression and establishing a nation in which a woman's voice matters as much as a man's, signs that the government is becoming more Islamist worry champions of women's rights.

One 23 year old woman says, "As a woman, I feel I need women in office to help me achieve my goals," she said. "So far we have seen nothing in the past elections. Women have been represented in the slates, but only to fill a space, and they haven't been valued."

via San Jose Mercury News.

On this Veteran’s Day, Code Pink Women for Peace gives us the resolution made in 1926 by Congress that recognized the end of World War I:

“Whereas the 11th of November 1918, marked the cessation of the most destructive, sanguinary, and far reaching war in human annals and the resumption by the people of the United States of peaceful relations with other nations, which we hope may never again be severed...

Whereas it is fitting that the recurring anniversary of this date should be commemorated with thanksgiving and prayer and exercises designed to perpetuate peace through good will and mutual understanding between nations.”

Additional to some ideas they offer on how to celebrate the true meaning of the holiday, there’s a good article with talking points on how to take action, “How to Support Our Troops on Veteran’s Day.”

As we have discussed over and over here at feministing, we are very skeptical of this new police/military style democracy emerging in Iraq and a peace process that has led to more deaths recently then before and this constitution that will supposedly support women's rights.

via Washington Post...

The draft going before voters Saturday specifies equality regardless of a person's sex and aspires to reserve 25 percent of the seats in the National Assembly for women.

But it also gives each Iraqi household the option of using religious law to decide matters of inheritance, divorce, alimony and other family issues. Rights advocates have said they fear women will be coerced by male relatives into accepting the least favorable interpretations of religious law -- forbidding divorce without a husband's permission, for example, or cutting a daughter's inheritance compared with a son's.

The constitution also sets aside seats for Muslim clerics on the Supreme Court, which will weigh the constitutionality of all laws. In a country where an Iranian-influenced Shiite religious party holds the balance of power, that alarms proponents of women's rights.

The article also discusses my favorite topic,the connection between military intervention and the growth of fundamentalism.

Shiite marshals roam the southern city of Basra, chastising women for showing a bare arm or calf and beating them for picnicking with male friends. Female lawmakers from the governing Shiite religious parties talk with relish of establishing a husband's right to beat wives -- albeit subject to regulation. Female officials speak with approval of a woman in the southern city of Najaf who was denied a judgeship because of her sex.

Milla says she has seen more and more colleagues retreat under head scarves, saying they fear becoming targets of the fundamentalism, linked to anti-American sentiment, that has been growing since the war.

They don't really elaborate on this growth of fundamentalism on behalf of women. But I know we have written about this before.

What do you think?

Check out this Salon article, “Why Women Matter,” where the author examines Iraq’s draft constitution and explains why women’s equal rights are essential for the success of a stable democracy.

The author points out that many basic fundamental rights are given to women in the draft, such as the right to vote, to run as political candidates, the right to pass citizenship on to their kids, and 25 percent of parliamentary seats have been set aside for women. Yet there are other parts of the draft where murky language leaves opportunities for oppression:

“For instance, freedom of expression, freedom of the media and freedom of association and peaceful protest are only guaranteed by the state if they do not ‘violate public order and morality.’ A parliament dominated by religious extremists could use this loophole to restrict actions, particularly those of women they deem immoral.

Another provision allows Iraqis to choose whether they will follow secular law or sharia law in family matters, such as marriage, divorce and inheritance. What is not clear, however, is whether men will have the right to make that decision even if their wives and daughters disagree. The power of clerics on the courts is also unclear, especially with regard to their ability to push the adoption of Islamic law and negate the constitution's protections of religious freedom and the rights of women.”

We’ve posted in the past on Iraqi women’s fear of ambiguous language and implementation of Shariah law into the draft, which could leave women’s rights in jeopardy. Looks like this new draft isn’t too far off.

Further to Lauryn's post, check out today's NY Daily News op-ed page. The president of the Women's Alliance for a Democratic Iraq wrote a piece reminding us how crucial the next few days will be for the women of Iraq.

As Lauryn explained, the danger is the implementation of an Iraqi Constitution that references Islam as THE source of legislation, not A source of legislation. The imposition of religious-based laws, under some Islamic sectors, could be horribe for Iraqi women, who make up about 60% of the country's population. According to today's op-ed, here are some of the scenarios possible if Islamic law alone rules Iraq:

*Once a wife is divorced she has to leave her house with possibly no place to go.
*Certain Islamic sectors allow for the marriage of girls as young as 9.
*Some interpretations allow for a guardian to force marriage on a girl against her will.
*Some sectors mandate that a mother loses custody of a male child when he reaches the age of 2 and a female child when she turns 7. The children then remain in the father's custody or with his immediate family.

Finally, to clarify, Iraqi women are not opposing the idea of Islam as one source of influence in the constitution. They simply feel that Islam should be one among many sources to prevent the dangerous application of law by "unaccountable clerics." (Right on -- we all know how it feels to be at the mercy of a national Court).

We'll keep you posted as the Constitution takes shape.

Tomorrow, leaders of major political parties in the Iraqi Transitional National Assembly and the members of the Constitution Drafting Committee will begin debating Iraq's draft constitution.

One major issue on the table -- how to integrate women's rights into the Iraqi Constitution. Many women's rights groups have taken issue with a Constitutional reference to Islam as *the source* of legislation not *a source* of legislation. Manal Omar, regional representative in Iraq of Women for Women International, explains that, "Many women are not against Islamic law in the Constitution, but feel that safeguards need to be put in place with regard to interpretations and applications of an overarching Islamic Shariah." Some women fear that that Shariah law could have a negative impact on a woman's inheritance, ability to divorce, etc.

Hopefully over the next ten days the Iraqi assembly will recognize that 93% of Iraqi women want their legal rights secured in the new constitution, but I'm not holding my breath. Click here to learn more on the constitutional campaign.

As the new constitution in Iraq is being drafted several NGO's working in the Middle East are urging the drafters to incorporate women's rights.

Reuters reports...

Some 20 NGOs, from Jordan, the occupied Palestinian territories and Iraq, raised their concerns at an international conference in the Jordanian capital, Amman, this week.

MPDL is working with women in the Middle East to create a space for face-to-face dialogue on gender issues.

"Iraq is at a crucial point in its history and women are playing a key role as members of civil society organisations: holding dialogue with diverse groups and articulating the needs of women in the country," she said.

Check out this editorial in the New York Times yesterday on the dehumanization of U.S. female soldiers, specifically at Guantanamo Bay, where military jailers developed degrading behavior that followed to Abu Ghraib prison.

The author discusses a Pentagon report that was released Wednesday that described the use of "female tactics" to get information from prisoners:

“There were several instances when female soldiers rubbed up against prisoners and touched them inappropriately. In April 2003, a soldier did that in a T-shirt after removing her uniform blouse. Following up on an F.B.I. officer's allegation that a female soldier had done a "lap dance" on a prisoner, the report described this scene from the interrogation of the so-called 20th hijacker from the 9/11 attacks: A female soldier straddled his lap, massaged his neck and shoulders, ‘began to enter the personal space of the subject,’ touched him and whispered in his ear.”

The author also puts her/his two cents in:

“These practices are as degrading to the women as they are to the prisoners. They violate American moral values - and they seem pointless.

If devout Muslims become terrorists because they believe Western civilization is depraved, does it make sense to try to unnerve them by having Western women behave like trollops?”

While I’m not a fan of some of the language going on in this editorial (not only does the author refers to the women as “trollops” but says that they’re “sex workers” for the military), there’s obviously some insane shit that was being enforced there (add it to the list). At the same time, when a female soldier touches a prisoner inappropriately, isn't it sexual assault? Can we really say that these assaults were "as degrading to the women as they are to the prisoners"? Gender aside, these soldiers are in power positions.

Thoughts?

More servicewomen have been killed in Iraq than in any other overseas action in the past 60 years. Good thing we're keeping women soldiers safe and out of "combat positions," eh?

Even though they are not assigned to ground combat units, 39 female soldiers have been killed in Iraq since March 2003. Four died and 11 were injured this weekend after an ambush in Fallujah. Military officials have said they believe the female troops may have been specifically targeted.

About 11,000 women are currently serving in Iraq. And even with the latest news that record numbers have given their lives in service to this country, some schmucks on the homefront are still focused on their baby-making capabilities.

Take it from Lemoyne Sanders of Jacksonville, NC, whose wife is a field medical corpsman in the Navy:

"You'll never get a woman to be as physically strong as a man," he said, adding: "Women get pregnant. It's just different."

Men die in combat. Women die in combat. I don't see how a uterus makes any difference.

My best friend just sent me this story and I am speechless, not to mention scared. A sixteen year old Pakistani girl from Queens became considered a threat to national security through a series of investigations.

The NYT reports, the story of how it happened - how Tashnuba was labeled an imminent threat to national security - is still shrouded in government secrecy. After nearly seven weeks in detention, she was released in May on the condition that she leave the country immediately. Only immigration charges were brought against her and another 16-year-old New York girl, who was detained and released. Federal officials will not discuss the matter.

Okay so WTF! This is the first terrorist investigation that is involving minors. It is has also received quite a bit of attention. ...the case reveals how deeply concerned the government is that a teenager might become a terrorist, and the lengths to which federal agents will go if they get even a whiff of that possibility. And it has drawn widespread attention, stoking the debate over the right balance between government vigilance and the protection of individual freedoms.

Apparently, one of the reasons she was investigated was due to her participation in a chat room where she was taking notes by a Islamic clergy man accused of supporting suicide bombings.

I suggest reading the article it goes into more detail (specifically into the demoralizing details of the investigation). What do we make of this? Is this really the current state of affairs in the world?

As an update to yesterday’s post on women soldiers in combat, a watered-down ban was just passed which will bar women from engaging in direct ground combat, reports MSNBC News.

The House Armed Services Committee approved the narrower restriction after the Army and Democrats said that the original amendment -- which would ban women from combat support and service units-- would close almost 22,000 jobs to women, restrain operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and undermine women’s morale.

The amendment was part of a bill that approved $442 billion in defense programs for the next fiscal year that the committee approved 61-1 late last night.

It’s good to see that Democrats are still objecting, saying that the narrower amendment is confusing, unnecessary, and an insult to the women serving in Iraq. “Women don’t deserve the kind of shabby treatment this committee’s been giving them the last week,” said Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Ark.

While it is a good thing that the original amendment wasn’t passed, I’m so fucking tired of these “compromises” being made to appease us. It’s appalling that any ban was passed in the first place. In other words, ‘tis a pretty shitty day for U.S. female soldiers.

Check out Echidne's take on this as well.

The Boston Globe reports that the House Armed Services Committee is introducing a proposal today "to bar women from mixed-gender military support units operating in Iraq, expressing concern that female soldiers are engaging in direct combat despite US laws keeping them from serving on the front lines."

While the Pentagon argues that the military critically needs female soldiers, conservative groups like Center for Military Readiness (a fave of mine) are backing the proposal saying that mixed gender fighting units cause "dangerous distractions."

Sounds like the apron argument to me.

Philip Gold and Erin Solaro in their Seattle Post-Intelligencer column, Facts about women in combat elude the right, argue that conservatives are turning a blind eye to reality and that feminists are shamefully silent on the issue:

In all the articles, op-eds and interviews that have appeared, from National Review to Fox News and the cumulating output of the think tanks and advocacy groups, three aspects are clear.

Finally, the conservative campaign ignores, indeed contravenes military necessity and the desires of the service.

While I'm not a fan of the column's sentiment on feminists (what do you call us talking about this now?), they bring up perhaps the most important point surrounding women in combat:

But there is an issue at stake here greater than military necessity. The issue is citizenship, and it is the same issue behind gay marriage. Are all citizens subject to the same rights and responsibilities? Are some citizens more equal than others? Shall we treat each other as citizens or as members of groups, some of whom may be excluded from full rights and responsibilities simply because others don't like them?

Any thoughts?

UPDATE: Some more feminists who haven't been "sadly silent": Pandagon, Stone Court, Sisyphus Shrugged and The Sideshow.

According to the Associated Press, language added to a defense bill Wednesday, sponsored by Rep. John McHugh, R-N.Y., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee's military personnel subcommittee, would prohibit women from serving in combat support and combat service support units.

Opponents contend "that if McHugh's amendment became law, it would over time remove women from all but a few select functions like piloting helicopters and medical work," while McHugh insists that "very few women would be affected by the change."

They haven't voted on this amendment yet. And I know so little about the way the armed forces work. I'd really appreciate y'all writing in and letting me know how you feel or what you know. To me, on the face of things, this seems like an unbelievably sexist and terrible policy. Especially considering that the Armed Services chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., was quoted as saying, "The American people have never wanted to have women in combat and this reaffirms that policy."

Huh?????

Let us know what you think.

And for more in depth info, check these:

House Armed Services Committee: http://www.house.gov/hasc/

Defense Department: http://www.defense.gov

An article on the GNN tells us...One female detainee, who identified herself as “Noor”, said that U.S. soldiers at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib raped women and, in many occasions, forced them to strip naked in public. She also said that many female detainees got pregnant.

“Sexualized violence and abuse committed by U.S. troops goes far beyond a few isolated cases,” she said.

Remember the US military represents freedom. Not patriarchy, power and oppression. Fuck it, let's go sing America.

Via Avedon Carol, the biggest stretch yet in the excuse-making arena--Bush would've caught bin Laden, but for the stupid broads.

For those on Capitol Hill, the Pentagon and at the White House who think that women in land combat is a ho-hum non-issue, there is strong evidence the U.S. lost the opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden because of politically correct Pentagon policies to have more female warriors.

I know. It seems ridiculous. But you see, it's widely believed that the terrorist-seeking radar the good Lord built into the human body is located in the penis, so as you can imagine, women are simply no good for looking for terrorists. In fact, even though a woman like me has seen bin Laden's face a million times on TV, I would not recognize him on the street without my penile terrorist sensors.

And that's a fact, not some silly theory like evolution.

There's only one thing to do, which is to pack up the female "warriors" and send them home, making sure to put enough into target range to be shot by American troops to give the Freepers plenty of fantasies about dead American women to crow about. Sure, there's the downside that stop-loss and other backdoor draft efforts will have to intensify, but if the men stationed in Iraq didn't want to be there, they were free to get a computer and join the 101st Fighting Keyboardists, weren't they?

Historically, Iraq has afforded women more rights relative to other countries in the Middle East. After the US invasion/occupation of Iraq, there has been a resurgence of conservative Shiite politicians trying to overturn laws protecting women's rights in marriage, divorce, and inheritance. Dr. Raja al-Kusai is a gynecologist from Iraq who is currently part of the national assembly and helping write the new constitution. She has been one of the fighting voices for women's political and social rights.

An article on ABC via Reuters states:
Kusai wants the new Iraqi constitution to treat men and women as equals, but others want to put tighter controls on women's rights in the tradition of Islamic law, known as sharia.

Several of these Shiite leaders are now part of the new government and have a heavy influence on the potential re-codification of sharia laws, which restrict women's rights in several significant ways. If sharia were to be re-implemented, "Men would be allowed up to four wives. A woman would need to write into her marriage contract her right to work. Women would inherit only half what male relatives receive — though they would still be able to drive cars, vote and even be members of parliament." Well, that's a relief!

I think it is important to recognize a connection between the coercive acts of the United States military and the loss of women's rights within the country under attack. The emasculation of men (of color) from a greater force almost demands the simultaneous oppression of women. Almost every historical moment of colonization and de-colonization has forced the rights of women be put to the side in order for a new "democracy" to emerge. This is a frustration since it is on the very backs of these women that a new nation is built. Why is that? How do we stop history from repeating itself over and over?

The US is claiming that the Iraqi women detained last week were not being held hostage. Reuters reports, "The U.S. military said on Friday two Iraqi women detained for six days had been held on suspicion of complicity in insurgent attacks, not used as hostages to pressure fugitive male relatives to surrender.

"U.S. forces do not take hostages, nor do we participate in blackmail activities," Lieutenant Colonel Clifford Kent, spokesman for the 3rd Infantry Division, said in a statement."
Yeah, my ass we don't participate in blackmail. Either way, when the women were detained they were blindfolded. That's not intimidating or anything. The women themselves said that they were not harmed or treated badly, but the US is investigating the hostage accusation.

Nuff said.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution, the "main" Atlanta newspaper, reports that First Lady Laura Bush said Tuesday that human rights in Iraq stand a better chance because women hold nearly one-third of the seats in the interim assembly that will oversee drafting a constitution.

Right on.

The article continued quoting Mrs. Bush in saying that her husband's democracy program was part of a larger effort to support women across the Middle East and North Africa, and quoted Condoleezza Rice as saying, "We are hoping to create opportunities for all Muslim women to participate fully in the lives of their nations."

Now, don't get me wrong. This is necessary, encouraging, comendable and well-overdue. But I can't help thinking it's ironic (in a pathetic, not humorous way).

The Bush administration has been atrocious to women domestically, but even worse in the international sphere. Bush cut funding for the United Nations Population Fund which funds maternity hospitals, family planning, emergency birth kits for refugees, and other international women's issues (not necessarily related to abortion). The Fund even tried to help decrease the number of abortions under China's restrictive family planning policy.

And that's just one example.

Maybe next time Mrs. Bush gives a speech about the importance of women's rights, it should be to her husband.

Amnesty International's latest report, Iraq: Decades of Suffering--Now Women Deserve Better, found that the status of women has *not* improved in Iraq over the last two years. For all the women's lib rhetoric that Bush likes to throw around, it's just not true. While the war succeeded in getting rid of Saddam, it replaced him with violence & religious conservatism. Not exactly a net gain for women.

According to Amnesty, "The lawlessness and increased killings, abductions and rapes that followed the overthrow of the government of Saddam Hussein have restricted women's freedom of movement and their ability to go to school or to work."

And of course Iraqi women gained new threats too--foreign soldiers. Amnesty explained that, "Women have been subjected to sexual threats by members of the U.S.-led forces and some women detained by U.S. forces have been sexually abused, possibly raped." (The Pentagon had no real response to the allegations. They claimed they needed time to review the report and determine its validity. Ummmm, yeah).

*BUT* I guess there is always a silver lining of sorts. The report also documents the emergence of several indigenous women's rights organizations in Iraq. Too bad we won't invest in these homegrown feminist projects instead of Bushie's IWF exported imperialism. (sigh).

Click here to check out Amnesty's full report.

Check out yesterday's article in The Washington Post on sexual assault in the military. The article highlights the Miles Foundation, an *awesome* non-profit that provides support to victims of violence within the military. According to the Miles Foundation, only about one third of the 307 sexual assaults that were reported to them have received official documentation. Well, thanks to the Miles Foundation at least these soldiers feel like they have someone to tell without fear of retribution.

In January, the Pentagon pledged to start taking sexual assault in the military more seriously. Let's just say I'm not holding my breath...

A new report found that nearly half of the women in Britain's Royal Air Force have been sexually harassed while in active service. More than 1000 of the 2500 women interviewed reported having been sexually harassed during the last twelve months.

Responding to the relatively low rates of reporting, the Ministry of Defence noted simply that, "Whilst people experience unacceptable behavior, the majority tolerate it and do not complain especially because they feel it will not be taken seriously or will affect their career." As I'm sure it would, given that most women reported being harassed by two or more male servicemen of a senior rank.

United Press International reported on one particularly disturbing case in which a Flight Lieutenant had a bounty placed on her head for the first crew member to have sex with her.

Not that the US stacks up any better. Surveys taken last year found that at the US Air Force Academy 70% of cadets reported being sexually harassed and 20% reported being sexually assaulted.

Given our current state of perpetual war, you have to take a step back and look at the treatment women are receiving within these institutions. While Bushie & Laura seem to love talking about the US military's liberation of the women of Afghanistan, it seems worth noting that a report released last month found that, "273 sexual assaults have been reported since August 2002 among U.S. troops deployed in Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Bahrain, including 119 in the Army and 32 in the Navy."

In honor of Veteran's day (slightly belated...), check out this piece in The Christian Science Monitor, "For women vets, a battle along with a war."

It covers the hurdles women in the armed forces face on and off the battlefield. And naturally--like every frigging article on women in the military--it quotes Elaine Donnelly, the head of the Center for Military Readiness, who is forever fearful of feminists. (Forgive my Dr. Suess-like alliteration...I didn't get much sleep last night.)

The NY Times recounts the latest disturbing treatment of sexual assault by the military--the story of Jennifer Dyer, an Army Lieutenant who was raped by a fellow officer. After reporting the assault and enduring a five hour interrogation in an abandoned motel room, Dyer was given two weeks of leave. She returned home and began medical treatment and counseling at the Atlantic County Women's Center, where her doctors counseled her not to return to Camp. Her doctors submitted medical reports to Dyer's commanding officers detailing how "going back would be absolutely disastrous to her short- and long-term mental health."

However, the reports were ignored and she was ordered to return within her two week leave or face prosecution. A letter from one of her commanding officers explained that, "that two weeks was a generous amount of time for leave and that it is enough time for a victim of such a crime to be recovered and returned to duty." Are you fucking kidding me??? Talk about revictimization. (sigh).

Well, Dyer decided not to return and has been officially classified as AWOL. Dyer's fiance explained that: "She was presented with a choice of abandoning her sanity or taking a stand and taking care of herself. She's chosen to hopefully become a productive member of society, but it's made her an outlaw." Wow--now that is what I call *strong*. While Dyer is taking an amazing stand, unfortunately she is not alone in her institutionalized abuse.

An Army report released earlier this year found that sexual assault in the military has increased steadily over the last five years. The report found that in 2002, there were 901 cases of sexual assault; in 2003, 1012 cases were investigated. Among those, more than three-quarters of the assailants were members of the Armed Forces; almost all the assailants were men; 91 percent of the victims were women; and the majority of assaults took place in the junior ranks. So much for Rumsfeld's pandering quips about how sexual assault in the military "must not be tolerated." (sigh).

There are some attempts to bring greater attention to victims mistreatment at the hands of military personnel--like the kickass organization Survivors Take Action Against Abuse by Military Personnel (STAAMP). The organization has collected more than 300 testimonies from families, friends and survivors of military abuse, and is leading the fight to create an Independent Investigative Agency to investigate, track and adjudicate cases of abuse and retaliation by military personnel. And there is a movement among Democrats in Congress to update the sexual assault provisions in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which would expand the definition of sexual abuse and give added protection for victims' rights.

Well, something definitely has to be done, and I commend Dyer for meeting her own medical and mental health needs. For more context on this discussion check out Hannah's post on Backlash in the military.

The Army is considering eliminating the women-in-combat ban as soon as January, The Washington Times reported today.

The Army is in negotiations with Rumsfeld’s staff to see if they can lift the ban—which has been in place for 10 years now. The ban won’t allow women in units that “collocate” with ground combatants.

Using Iraq as an example, Lt. Col. Chris Rodney says in the article that everyone faces similar threats in that all soldiers face attack "by rockets, mortars, roadside bombs and ambushes," and that “there is no front-line threat right now.”

For previous Feministing posts on women in the military, click here, here, and here.

If you're interested in learning about a feminist perspective on the war in Iraq, check out Cynthia Enloe's work. I was lucky enough to see her speak at the Institute for Research and Women's annual conference at University at Albany last week titled, "Making Feminist Sense in the War in Iraq".

One part of Enloe's discussion was identifying "militarization", and how during this time of war we are vulnerable to be militarized ourselves -- to believe that not only that we are constantly threatened by certain "enemies" in the world, but that violence and war is usually the only way to solve this problem.

Enloe is chair of the Government Department and director of the Women's Studies department at Clark University. She is renowned for her famous books on globalization, militarization of gender, sexual politics in war, and feminist perspectives of international policies. To check out some of her books, click here.

The Feminist Majority Foundation reported today that the Independent Women’s Forum (IWF) was "one of the recipients awarded part of a $10 million grant to train Iraqi women in the skills of democratic public life." According to IWF's site, they "will...implement a 12-month Women Leaders Program and Democracy Network Information and Coordination Center....The Center will be a key source of information and educational materials on democracy, campaigning, and governance for a variety of Iraqi democracy and women's rights advocacy organizations."

YIKES! If you aren't familiar with IWF, they're one of the most infuriating and scary groups out there. Check out the following statement from their website:

IWF provides a voice for...mainstream women. We...[c]ounter the dangerous influence of radical feminism in the courts; [c]ombat corrosive feminist ideology on campus; [c]hange the terms of the debate on quality of life issues affecting American women... [c]hallenge conventional feminist myths with accurate information and lively debate; [p]rovide a forum for women who are not represented by radical feminist groups.

Whaaaaaa?! Do these women realize where they'd be without the feminist movement?

My own anger aside, this is really significant. Think how awful it is that these women will be shaping a budding women's network.

Though there's not much we can do now, write Colin Powell to express your disgust:

United States Department of State
Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs
Washington, D.C. 20520-7250

Also, check out Echidne's great post on the same subject...

A group of 9/11 widow activists have announced their endorsement of the Kerry campaign, and their determination to get George W. Bush out of the White House.

In a press conference yesterday, Kristen Breitweiser of Middletown, NJ stated that "in the three years since 9/11, I could never have imagined I would be here today, disappointed in the person I voted for, for president."

She went onto to note that she plans to travel around the country to campaign for Kerry: “I have not flown on a plane since 9/11. I have now committed myself to get on a plane and fly wherever I have to fly...I don’t know if it’s going to be successful, because I have serious anxiety about getting on a plane, but that is how committed I feel.” Breitweiser voted for Bush in the 2000 election.

The main reasons behind the endorsement was the women’s feelings concerning the Bush administration’s actions (or lack thereof) after the 9/11 attacks, and the absence of support for funding of the commission to investigate the attacks. Many of the women also feel that the administration used 9/11 to justify the war in Iraq while Osama bin Laden remained at large.

Salon covered this story in a comprehensive article today:

The endorsement was a sword clanging against Bush's political armor. Polls show that voters rate Bush high on his handling of 9/11 and its aftermath, and Republicans have been quick to exploit that approval with television ads and their recent convention, held in Manhattan around the theme of Bush's leadership against terrorism…

… the widows cited the invasion of Iraq as one of their top reasons for supporting Kerry. "Unfortunately, before the work in Afghanistan was complete ... this administration moved our most precious resources, America's sons and daughters, into Iraq, without the support of our allies. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and that is what we learned from the 9/11 commission's final report," said Lorie Van Auken of East Brunswick, N.J. "Sept. 11 was an enormous intelligence failure, and yet nothing was done to fix our intelligence after 9/11, and that same intelligence apparatus took us into Iraq. So it's doubly frustrating to learn that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11." Van Auken said she is also worried that with military forces stretched thin, her 17-year-old son and 15-year-old daughter could be called up in a draft.

There are almost 15,000 women serving in Iraq, with many of them on the front lines. As of yesterday, there have been 691 US deaths in Iraq, with last week being the deadliest. With this rapidly increasing death toll, and the highest ever death rate of women soldiers, many are beginning to question the role of female soldiers.

A 4/10/04 LA Times story, partially available at the Omaha World-Herald, says that Americans are beginning "to confront a new military reality:" women are being placed in combat zones and dying. Of course, there is nothing "new" about people dying in wars, and women who enlist surely understand the risks as well as their male counterparts. The piece also points out the obvious fact that "with more women serving in the armed forces, more are exposed to danger."

This patronizing fear of women being in "danger" is why women still cannot serve in various aspects of the military, including direct ground combat.

Extensively quoted in article is Elaine Donnelly, President of the Center for Military Readiness, who puts forth a popular argument: women should not be on the front lines because of the high risk of sexual assault if captured.

Approximately 10 percent of US women have experienced an attempted or completed rape during their first year at college—does that mean women shouldn't go to college?

Donnelly's concern about rape victims hardly seems sincere. Consider her explicit description of Jessica Lynch's ordeal in a National Review article:

American medical records indicate that she was "a victim of anal sexual assault. The records do not tell whether her captors assaulted her almost lifeless, broken body after she was lifted from the wreckage, or if they assaulted her and then broke her bones into splinters until she was almost dead"… If Defense Department officials cannot bring themselves to tell Americans the truth about what happens to women in war, perhaps they should not be sending female soldiers so close combat zones in the first place.

Lovely. And how considerate to use a rape scare tactic to justify blatant discrimination.

Donnelly blames "feminist activists" for permitting women to be in dangerous combat zones, and argues that women lack "the strength to cope with physical burdens" in war.

If you listen to women, however, the front lines are exactly where they want to be. Spc. Karima L. Mares in an Army News Service piece says, "Women take the same oath of enlistment as men, they go to Basic Combat Training and the Basic Officers Course and they qualify with their weapons, yet women do not have the choice to be in direct ground combat."

Even the mother of killed Pfc. Lori Ann Piestewa believes that women should be allowed to serve as they please. Quoted in the LA Times piece, she says "We shouldn't place that restriction on women. That is a right to choose. And that's what Lori chose to do."

No matter how you feel about the war, women have proven themselves just as capable as men – and just as willing to sacrifice.