Valkyries of War

Though I would not be proud to stand up and say that women are equally responsible for atrocities committed in times of conflict as men, it would be a false dichotomy to deny it. In fact, I find the tendency to point the finger at men for being the wagers of war, and to assert that if more women were in power we'd have less war, to be utterly abhorrent.

Why? Because it creates a divide, and perpetuates another war that is otherwise slowly dying out and really has had its time. The battle of the sexes is no longer a war we need to fight. To lay the blame at the feet of one gender and expect that women, purely by reason of their gender, would not resort to war in international relations, is a naive and divisive standpoint.

This idea has been challenged recently with some interesting twists in the media. Obama was at first reticent to use force in Libya, and many of his (male) security advisors were against getting involved in another expensive, uncertain conflict on foreign shores, given the messes in Afghanistan and Iraq. In the end it appears it was due to the pursuasiveness of three top women advisors in his administration that he was convinced to take military action. And because it was three women, the media leapt on it.

They have been called the "Valkyries of War", and the mission has been dubbed by one journalist as the "war of the three sisters". Juicy stuff! And cause for many questions.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, together with Samantha Power, senior policy advisor on the National Security Council, and US ambassador to the UN Susan Rice, are "credited" with having made the final push on the no-fly zone and the US involvement in the UN authorised use of force in Libya. And of course the media love this unlikely trio of war-hungry women, with New York Times stories of the "girls taking on the guys" in the White House, and NBC stories covering the phenomenon of women policy advisors taking on the men.

There seems to be a suprise that women would give the push for involvement in warfare. But there are two sides to this story to consider.

One is that women have, unfortunately, but realistically, been involved in warfare throughout history.

Although it requires a bit of digging to find them, there are many historical examples of women leaders who waged war and fought on the frontlines of battles. Characters like Joan of Arc, ancient Arabian women warriors Kahula and Wafeira, 11th Century Queen of Arragon, 16th Century Grainne O'Malley the Irish Pirate Queen (depicted right, at her historical meeting with Queen Elizabeth I, another determined female leader of the time) are not unique examples. And let us not forget the 20th century's Margaret Thatcher, a prime minister whose legacy includes the Falklands war as well as her integral role in ensuring her pal August Pinochet did not get extradited from the UK for his pending trial in Spain for crimes against humanity.

In recent history there were a number of women on trial at Nuremberg in the Doctor's Trial and the Justices Trial, many of whom were executed for their participation in heinous atrocities at the concentration camps and in the Nazi administration. Currently at the Extraordinary Criminal Chambers of Cambodia, where members of the Pol Pot regime of the 1970's are on trial, a number of women stand as defendants. (See one of my favourite blogs for more info on this: IntLawGrrls, where the image below of Maria Mandel, executed for her role as a prison guard at Auschwitz, is also from.)

And in mythology there are plenty of images of the female warrior. The very fact that the US involvement in Libya has given rise to talk of "Valkyries of war" is testament to the fear instilled by such images. The destroyer is in many goddess archetypes, like Kali, Nike, Athena (depicted right), Minerva, and indeed the Nordic Valkyries, though interestingly enough these goddesses also often embody the corollary nature of life-giver, fertility, mother.

And let's not and let's not forget such pop culture warriors as Xena Warrior Princess, Wonder Woman (see my blog post on WW), Shera, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Lara Croft (or any other number of Angelina Jolie characters!).



We women have the capacity for destruction in us as well. Any notion that women running the world would ensure a war-free existence is naive, unbalanced, destructive to forwarding a new dialogue of equality, and even patronising. Not that I champion women as war-wagers, but let's move on from such essentialist ideas as the "fairer sex" being all peace-loving, and men being the only guilty ones. Let's start from reality and move forward from there.

The other side of this story is that the media jumped onto the idea of the Valkyries, as if the these advisors pushing for warfare were blood-lusting destructive sirens, who lured the innocent Obama into war. But perhaps there were other factors in the political stance taken by these women?

Hillary Clinton was reportedly luke-warm on going in to Libya, but it is asserted that memories of Rwanda during her husband's presidency led her to shift to a more pro-active stance. Sarah Power was given her post in the Obama administration at least partly due to her outspoken stance on genocide and the need to intervene. She has won prizes for her publications on this very point. And Rice was also part of the Clinton administration when the horrors of Rwanda and the failure of the international community to intervene became apparent.

While the atrocities in Libya cannot amount to genocide as a matter of international law, it could be posited that these women were pushing for intervention for humanitarian reasons, rather than for blood-lusty power-based ones.

The point, to me, is that if there is anything "inherent" about war and conflict, it is perhaps the "unconscious masculine" in us all, both women and men. The waging of war for one's own selfish ends - oil reserves to keep the car industry going, control over other resource fuels or water, control over regions which threaten one's own cultural and political domination, religious ferver - these are the result of the unconscious masculine, the shadow of the warrior archetype. And that potential is in all of us.

On the other hand, the conscious masculine, the healthy warrior archetype, is willing to fight when it is necessary. When one's territory, family, safety, integrity is threatened by the force of another's shadow-driven attack. It is entirely appropriate to bring out the (she-)wolf and to fight to the death in some situations. Humanitarian intervention may be what inspires this conscious use of force. In fact it may well be a feminine (note: not "female", but "feminine"!) urge to protect and heal that leads to such interventionist use of force. And that potential is in us all as well. (See my blog post on "Dear Woman")

Valkyries of war? Maybe, but let's consider what is behind the political decision, rather than simply focus on the gender of those pushing for these decisions.