Sexual Domination in Uniform: An American Value

Sexual Domination in Uniform: An American Value
By Linda Burnham

[Linda Burnham is the Executive Director of the Women of Color
Resource Center in Oakland, Calif.( http://www.coloredgirls.org). She
is also part of Speak Out (http://www.speakoutnow.org) A special
issue of War Times (http://www.war-times.org) will be forthcoming on
issues of gender, race and war.]

The Abu Ghraib portraits of sexual humiliation and submission have
exposed the unbelievably tangled strands of racism, misogyny,
homophobia, national arrogance and hyper-masculinity that
characterize the U.S. military. Militarized sexual domination is
neither "contrary to American values" nor simply the work of a few
"bad apples." It is, rather, a daily practice.

The "bad apples" defense is both unspeakably inadequate and
completely disingenuous.

While narrowing the scope of inquiry to individual transgression may
provide a convenient protective shield for the military, it also
deflects attention away from very troubling realities. The photos of
Abu Ghraib reveal as much about our nation as they do about the
soldiers of the 372nd Military Police Company.

As our president made clear, the intent of the invasion and
occupation of Iraq was to bring the Iraqi opposition to its knees.
Why then the surprise that soldiers would be thrilled to comply so
literally? The scenario in which an Iraqi man kneels with the penis
of another in or near his mouth shocked us all. But our leaders' call
for the naked humiliation of Arabs and Muslims was not so muted that
only a few stray soldiers heard.

Iraqi prisoners made to wear women's underwear. Those who battled for
women's equal right to serve should take heed. Degradation and
weakness are still equated with the female in this man's army.

Much has been made of the role of Private Lynndie England, the
thumbs-up girl of prisoner abuse. Her culpability seems manifest and,
back on home turf, England will have to fight for her soul the best
way she knows how.

But England is the second cover girl for the Iraq installment of the
U.S. military's sexual integration story. Jessica Lynch was the
first. Two fresh-faced, working-class, small-town girls eager to
escape the limitations of location and station. Escape they did, into
the welcoming arms of an institution that used one to rally the
nation, spinning a narrative of the endangered but plucky female,
rescued from the dark barbarian hordes. It will use the other as
sacrifice to assuage the anxieties of a troubled nation.

In her role as dominatrix over Iraqi men England exposed the
sexualization of national conquest. As a participant in the
militarized construction of the masculine she inaugurated a brand
new, frightening archetype: dominant-nation female as joyful agent of
sexual, national, racial and religious humiliation. How's that for
liberation?

Lynndie England aside, the scenes at Abu Ghraib depict sexual
domination as a feature of military hyper-masculinity. The horrific
Denver Post revelations of the sexual assault and rape of multitudes
of servicewomen are a further indication that sexual domination in
uniform is hardly a rarity.

Our military is built upon the daily subjugation of the sexual lives
of thousands upon thousands of women to the sexual appetites of
servicemen overseas. Subordinating the national interests of
countries the world over to the geo-political interests of the U.S.
seemingly requires the sexual sacrifice of some portion of these
nations' women--poor women, always.

Military prostitution is viewed as rest and relaxation, entertainment
for the troops. While the purported "goal" of the sexual humiliation
of Abu Ghraib prisoners was to extract vital information, the photos
tell a more twisted story. The cheery faces tell us that dramatizing
the metaphoric rape of the Iraqi nation by acting out the sexual
domination of Iraqi men was big fun.

Casting themselves as directors and actors in the drama of sexual
humiliation, the prison guards clearly believed that they could do
whatever they wished, and thoroughly enjoy themselves in the process.
Was it un-American for them to think so? Not when the core message of
their commander-in-chief to the Iraqi people has been, "You will bow
down to our capacity to dominate, and we will exercise that capacity
despite global opposition."

The struggle over assigning culpability has taken on the character of
a high-stakes political tango. That struggle will intensify. Although
there's no question but that everyone responsible, from the immediate
perpetrators on up, must be held to account, culpability runs far
deeper.

It may be hard to get up in the morning and face this fact, but we
are, collectively, as guilty as hell. We elect representatives who
feed the military monster. We honor sadistic hyper-masculinity,
awarding those who portray it best with governorships (e.g. Arnold
Schwarzenneger). We devote vast resources to bondage and discipline
in our criminal justice system. And we lie to ourselves unceasingly.

The world is weary of, and profoundly angered by, America's tattered
claim of innocence.

The soldiers at Abu Ghraib pulled back the curtain on their perverse
enactments so that we may see who we are. Do we have the courage to
look? Do we have the will to change?
______________