Gender, Orientalism, and the 'War on Terror': Reproduction and Intervention

Gendered Orientalist Narratives and the Iraq War

Introduction to Gendered Orientalism

  • Definition: Gendered orientalist discourse refers to how gender constructs and interactions are influenced by orientalist narratives, particularly in the context of military or political conflicts.

  • Context: This discourse was pivotal leading up to the Iraq War, drawing on narratives established during the early 'War on Terror' and the intervention in Afghanistan.

The Concept of 'Other' in US Discourse

  • Contrasting Identities: Constructed using binaries:

    • 'Self' (the US) perceived as progressive, strong, and moral.

    • 'Other' (Iraq, Afghanistan) seen as backward, oppressive, and uncivilised.

  • Reproduction of Narratives: Early US discourse created a framework that justified intervention by portraying the 'Other' as both a threat and a victim, in need of liberation.

Historical Narrative Prior to Iraq War

  • Continuity with Afghanistan Discourse: Gendered orientalist identities shaped earlier war narratives and continued into the Iraq context through tropes of 'oriental despotism' and the 'sexuality of the Other'.

  • Motifs Explained:

    • Oriental Despotism: Iraq is depicted as unable to govern itself, with Saddam Hussein personified as a tyrant typical of the orient.

    • Feminisation of Iraq: Iraqi citizens, especially women, are portrayed as victims needing rescue, mirroring earlier depictions of Afghan women.

Official Justifications for War

  • Claims Made by the US Administration:

    • Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs).

    • Links made between Hussein and terrorism, particularly in the context of September 11 attacks.

  • Public Reception: Research showed nearly 50% of Americans believed there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11, demonstrating the effectiveness of orientalist discourses in shaping perceptions.

Construction of Military Intervention as Necessary

  • Competing Narratives: Official representation emphasized the need for intervention to secure both US safety and Iraq’s future.

  • Debate Dynamics: Unlike the Afghanistan intervention (widely accepted due to 9/11), the Iraq War faced more scrutiny and was perceived as less justifiable.

Gendered Orientalist Dynamics in Iraq Conflict

  • Link between Masculinity and War: US represented as a hypermasculine force for liberation against a threatening masculinity embodied by Hussein and his regime.

  • Representation of Barbarism: The characterization of the Iraqi regime focused on acts of brutality, which was framed as justification for military actions that portrayed the US as a liberating force.

Gender and Sexuality in War Narratives

  • Abu Ghraib as a Case Study: The abuse scandal illustrated how sexuality and gender challenged the binaries established by US narratives:

    • Female soldiers participating in the abuse blurred gender lines, questioning receptive images of masculinity.

    • Depictions of sexualized violence reinforced the perceived masculinity of the US in contrast to the femininity of those it was fighting.

The Role of 'Saving' Female Iraqis in Discourse

  • Discourse on Women: Emphasis was placed on Iraq’s women as requiring rescue from patriarchal rule, drawing parallels with narratives surrounding Afghan women during the previous military campaigns.

    • Bush utilized language around women's rights as a justification for the invasion, promoting an image of the US as a champion of freedom.

The Reality vs. Representations of Iraqi Society

  • Truths of Women's Rights Pre-Invasion: After the invasion and the narratives around liberation, it is important to recognize the relatively more secure situation Iraqi women experienced pre-2003.

  • Counter-Narratives: Complexity and nuances of Iraqi social structures and the status of women were often omitted or simplified in US representations.

Oriental Despotism: Links to Terrorism

  • Linking Iraq with Terrorism: The notion of 'oriental despotism' intertwined with global terrorism narratives to create a sense of urgency around Iraq's supposed threat.

  • Bush's Framework: Addressed the international community projecting Iraq as part of a larger axis of evil, continuing the pre-established orientalist rhetoric.

The Impact of Language on Perception

  • Hypermasculinity as a Justification for War: Bush’s speeches constructed a narrative of the US as a protector, where military interventions were viewed as necessary for maintaining civilization.

  • Language and Public Opinion: The way representatives articulated threats shaped public understanding and framed military action as not just justified, but essential.

Conclusion: Dynamics of Gender and Engagement in Iraq

  • Final Reflections on Gendered Narratives: The framing of the Iraq War was steeped in orientalist and gendered logic that defined identities, narratives, and justifications of military action.

  • Implication of These Discourses: Those within the US, including media and government officials, utilized these narratives to frame war as an altruistic necessity while neglecting the complexities faced by both 'civilised' and 'barbaric' societies.

Here’s an in-depth summary and analysis of “Exposing the Emerging Orientalist Narrative of Peace and Security for Afghanistan” (Parts I and II) by Bashir Mobasher and Zakira Rasooli, published by the Toda Peace Institute in 2023.

Essays Overview:

Across the two essays, Mobasher and Rasooli critique how Western politicians, analysts, and media outlets have begun to portray Afghanistan under Taliban rule as “peaceful,” “stable,” or “improving.” They argue that this narrative is not based on Afghan realities but on a persistent Orientalist worldview—a Western construction of the “East” as backward, irrational, and inherently violent. This Orientalist lens allows the West to accept or even celebrate a form of “peace” in Afghanistan that it would never tolerate for itself: one built on repression, gender apartheid, ethnic persecution, and the silencing of dissent.

Part I: False Peace and the Erasure of Afghan Suffering

1. The Western Rebranding of the Taliban

Mobasher and Rasooli open by discussing recent Western figures who have praised the Taliban for bringing “security” to Afghanistan. They cite:

  • Tobias Ellwood, a UK parliamentarian who released a video describing Afghanistan as “vastly improved” under Taliban control.

  • Cheryl Bernard, an American author, and Zalmai Khalilzad, the former U.S. envoy behind the Doha Agreement, who both suggested that Afghans are “safer” under the Taliban.

The authors argue that these claims reflect a dangerous rewriting of history. They erase the Taliban’s decades of violence, including extrajudicial killings, torture, forced displacements, and persecution of women and minorities. By focusing on the absence of open warfare, these narratives ignore ongoing structural and cultural violence.

2. Defining Peace Beyond the Absence of Violence

Mobasher and Rasooli distinguish between negative peace (the absence of armed conflict) and positive peace (justice, dignity, equality, and human rights). Drawing from peace studies scholars like Johan Galtung, they argue that real peace requires the dismantling of systems that produce fear, poverty, and exclusion.

By this standard, Afghanistan is far from peaceful. Reports by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Reporters Without Borders document widespread repression:

  • Women banned from work, education, and movement.

  • Ethnic and religious minorities—especially Hazaras and Shi’a—subjected to forced evictions and violence.

  • Journalists intimidated into silence.

  • Nearly 17 million Afghans facing severe hunger and 6 million at risk of famine.

The Taliban’s rule, they conclude, has institutionalized gender apartheid and entrenched a humanitarian catastrophe. The claim of “peace” is thus a myth that serves foreign political interests, not Afghan realities.

3. Orientalism as the Frame

The authors connect these misrepresentations to Edward Said’s theory of Orientalism, which describes how the West constructs the East as inferior and incapable of self-determination. Within this mindset, Afghan suffering is normalized: repression and patriarchy are seen as natural to Afghan culture rather than as human rights violations.

The West’s willingness to call Taliban rule “peaceful,” they argue, reveals a double standard. Western observers imagine Afghans as fundamentally different—people for whom freedom and equality are unnecessary luxuries. This mindset paves the way for the arguments developed in Part II.

Part II: Orientalism, Hobbesian “Peace,” and Western Hypocrisy

1. The Hobbesian Logic of Orientalist Peace

Part II begins by drawing on philosopher Thomas Hobbes’s idea of “peace through absolute control.” Hobbes argued that the only alternative to chaos was submission to a powerful ruler. Mobasher and Rasooli suggest that Western commentators still apply this colonial logic to “developing” nations.

In the Orientalist imagination, Afghans are portrayed as “primitive,” “uncivilized,” and incapable of democratic governance. Therefore, any form of order—even imposed through brutality—is seen as acceptable. The Taliban’s authoritarian control is reframed as stability, echoing Hobbes’s claim that security under tyranny is preferable to anarchy.

2. The Western Tourist and the “Illusion of Safety”

The authors criticize Western visitors and journalists who describe feeling “safe” under Taliban rule. They argue that these experiences are profoundly misleading. The Taliban stage-manage such visits to create a façade of hospitality, offering protection and escorting foreigners while brutally policing locals.

This “performative safety” masks the daily fear that ordinary Afghans live with—especially women, journalists, and ethnic minorities who face detention, harassment, and torture for even minor acts of dissent. Westerners mistake their privilege for stability, projecting their own comfort onto a society in crisis.

3. The Eurocentric Standard of Peace

Mobasher and Rasooli describe how European governments and media measure peace in Afghanistan by one narrow criterion: the reduction of Afghan migration to Europe. If fewer refugees arrive, they conclude, Afghanistan must be “stable.”

This cynical calculus turns Afghan lives into a border management issue. It explains why European nations host Taliban delegations in Oslo or The Hague while simultaneously banning Taliban representatives from mosques in their own countries. The Taliban’s extremism, they write, is “tolerated and normalized for Afghans, not for Europeans.”

4. The U.S. Narrative: From Enemy to Partner

The authors then critique the Biden administration’s shift toward describing the Taliban as a “counterterrorism partner.” Since the withdrawal in 2021, U.S. officials have praised the Taliban for fighting ISIS-K and cutting ties with Al-Qaeda, rebranding them as useful allies.

Mobasher and Rasooli call this “the most cynical manifestation of Orientalism.” Violence against Afghans no longer counts as terrorism unless it targets Americans or their allies. The U.S. defines security in purely American terms: if collaboration with the Taliban protects U.S. interests, it must also benefit Afghanistan—an assumption that is both false and self-serving.

5. The Two Orientalist Presuppositions

The article concludes with two interconnected critiques of Western thinking:

  1. Western Interests = Global Interests: Whatever benefits the West is automatically portrayed as good for the rest of the world. If a partnership with the Taliban enhances U.S. security, it must be “good” for Afghanistan.

  2. Unequal Standards of Peace: The West reserves “positive peace”—defined by liberty, justice, and human rights—for itself, while imposing “negative peace”—the mere absence of open conflict—on the Global South.

In this framework, Western societies expect freedom from fear, inequality, and humiliation, but see such conditions as normal for Afghans. The Taliban’s repression becomes not a tragedy but an acceptable price for “stability.”

Central Argument

Across both essays, Mobasher and Rasooli expose the Orientalist double standard that continues to shape Western policy and discourse. They argue that the West’s willingness to tolerate tyranny in Afghanistan reflects a hierarchy of human worth. Afghans are treated not as subjects of rights, but as objects of management.

For the authors, Orientalism is not an abstract concept; it is a lived reality that determines which lives deserve safety, which women deserve freedom, and whose suffering counts as “peaceful.” True peace, they insist, cannot exist without dignity, justice, and equality—values that Western governments claim to uphold but routinely deny to the Global South.

Key Takeaways

  • The Western narrative of Taliban “peace” is rooted in colonial assumptions of Afghan inferiority.

  • “Peace” defined as the absence of war ignores structural violence and systemic repression.

  • Western politicians and media selectively normalize authoritarianism in the Global South while rejecting it at home.

  • U.S. and European governments instrumentalize Afghan suffering to serve their own geopolitical interests.

  • Genuine peace requires global consistency: the same human rights standards must apply to Afghans as to Western citizens.

Personal Thoughts

What stood out to me most in these essays was how familiar the logic behind the “new” Western narrative about Afghanistan actually is. Mobasher and Rasooli present it as emerging, but it feels like something much older—an inheritance from colonial thinking that has simply adapted its vocabulary for a post-9/11 world. The idea that Afghans should be grateful for “order,” even if that order is built on gender apartheid and ethnic persecution, exposes how deeply the West still believes that some people are meant for full humanity and others are meant for survival alone.

What troubled me most was how easily the language of peace becomes a cover for abandonment. When Western politicians praise the Taliban for reducing street crime or making “progress,” they are measuring Afghan lives not by their own standards of dignity but by whatever makes Afghanistan more convenient to forget. I kept thinking about how “stability” is a word that has always meant something different when applied to the Global South. Stability for whom? At what cost? Under whose terms? In Mobasher and Rasooli’s critique, stability becomes a kind of moral discount: something that looks respectable from the outside but is paid for with the rights and freedoms of people who no longer get to define their own future.

I also found their analysis of Western tourists and journalists unsettling but accurate. The idea that foreigners can walk through Kabul feeling “safe” while Afghans are surveilled, controlled, and punished for the smallest misstep reveals how privilege distorts perception. Safety becomes an experience rather than a condition. Western visitors can enjoy curated calm because they are not the ones being governed; they are being hosted. It reminded me of the broader pattern where Westerners interpret their ability to move freely in another country as proof that the society itself is secure, while the people who actually live there experience something entirely different.

Their argument about the U.S. rebranding the Taliban as a counterterrorism partner was equally striking. It shows how malleable the word “terrorism” becomes when filtered through American interests. Violence against Afghans does not register as terror because Afghan bodies are not centered in Western calculations of safety. This is perhaps the starkest example of Orientalism in the essays: Afghan lives are not treated as ends in themselves, but as instruments in someone else’s security strategy.

Overall, what affected me most was the ethical double standard the authors expose. Western societies imagine themselves deserving of positive peace—freedom, equality, rights—while imagining Afghans as suited to negative peace, where silence is mistaken for stability. It made me think about how many global narratives are built on the same hierarchy, where the suffering of certain groups becomes background noise in policy discussions. Mobasher and Rasooli make clear that this narrative is not just patronizing; it is violent. It erases agency, suppresses dissent, and justifies inaction.

Their critique left me feeling that the conversation about Afghanistan has shifted not because the country has improved, but because the West has chosen a version of events that relieves it of responsibility. The essays reminded me that the first step toward justice is refusing stories that are convenient for the powerful and costly for the vulnerable.