War is very much a feminist issue and not just
because of the power gap between the testosterone fuelled madness that leads to
war and those caught in the cross fire. Nor is it just an issue for the
feminist camp because of the way rape is routinely used as a weapon of war. The
increasing involvement of women soldiers on the frontline has opened up dark
corners and has possibly pitted feminism against some of its assumed bedfellows
– pacifism and small ‘l’ liberalism.
Nowhere is this dilemma more clearly personified
than in the figure of Lynndie England. If this name rings unpleasant bells but
you can’t quite place it – think of those horrendous pictures of Iraqi
prisoners being abused, tortured and humiliated in Abu Ghraib during the Iraq
invasion. US private Lynndie England is the face of that nightmare. She is the
painfully young-looking soldier gurning over the pyramid of naked prisoners and
she is the juvenile-looking t-shirted soldier with a naked prisoner on the floor
on the end of a leash (and they weren’t the worst pictures).
There was little surprise when latterly the general
view finally coagulated round the truth that the invasion of Iraq was illegal.
It is interesting that, as we mark the centenary of the outbreak of WWI this
year, the more politicians try to harness some frisky jingoism – the more the
voices of the ordinary soldiers sing out strong from the mass of graves “what a
waste”. But whilst the, often illiterate, foot soldiers of that time were duped
by their warring masters, Lynndie England was duped at every level. From the
system that failed to educate her to a close and senior soldier who clearly had
emotional and sexual influence over her to the hawks who peddled the nonsense
that justified attack, right up to her president and Commander in Chief who
seemed to want to show daddy Bush what a big boy he was – she was conned.
To this day she proposes no penitence, sticking to
her mantra that they were “the enemy”. Even that, as we now know, was wrong.
George W in fact had a pragmatic friendship with Saddam H. In a nutshell Bush
Jnr wanted the war to finish unfinished business and Blair wanted to be super
buddies with Bush.
But why would a humanitarian like me sense an
uncomfortable conundrum when it comes to Lynndie England? Firstly, there is a
general moral problem in convicting soldiers of war-crimes when the two main
and most senior perpetrators remain unpunished. In trying to explain that one
an analogy might help. Imagine a couple of burglars – the two top dogs in the
hood – decide to break into a house. They enlist a group of children (because
the children can get in and they can’t – come on you’ve seen Oliver Twist) and
the children have to obey them. During the burglary the children damage things
in the house. How would we feel if the children were then captured and punished
while the two burglars not only got off scot free but went off to live free and
prosperous?
Perhaps we should remind ourselves that our own
favourite war criminal – Mr. Perma-tan-Tony himself, is not only at liberty but
estimated to be now worth around £75million.
As a pacifist I find the idea that there are right
and wrong ways to slaughter people bizarre (see blog 44. Killing them
Softly). But where an invasion is dubious, troops go into the hell pits of
conflict with a psychological profile even more warped than usual. And Private
Lynndie England was a woman in a mess who was thrown into one of the ugliest
messes in our time.
Lynndie England, who joined the army in her teens
from her trailer-trash background, first became involved with Charles Graner –
14 years her senior in age and senior to her in rank – in 2003.
It’s a well circulated idea that the group of
soldiers arriving at the crowded Abu Ghraib prison in 2004 were led to believe
that the ritual humiliation of prisoners was a technique that was sanctioned by
their commanders. It was used as a means of ‘softening up’ prisoners and had
been in use long before they arrived. That is not an excuse – it’s just
interesting information.
Garner (convicted ring-leader of the abuses which
came to light) was in the habit of taking explicit pictures of Lynndie when he
had sex with her and encouraged her to pose with the prisoners in the manner
described above. Graner got Lynndie pregnant (though he disowned her and even
initially denied paternity) while also sexually involved with one of her
friends and fellow soldiers.
There is no way of denying that part of what shocked
about these particular abuses, involving Lynndie England, was her gender. There
were worse abuses, including the slaughter and rape of women and children by
rogue soldiers but we almost expect that in war. If we don’t we should by now.
But we cannot deny that – even in war – we expect better behaviour from women.
Maybe we have to accept that when a male and female soldier stand side by side
– each with a weapon – there remains something unequal about them that requires
our questioning.