Featured here are articles that our writers from WIIS McGill’s Publications Portfolio have written on a wide array of issues pertaining to International Security.
The “Army of Roses” – Women in Terrorism: A Threat Long Overlooked
Written by: Jeanne Belva
Edited by: Lynn Hoffmeister
November 14th, 2024
Terrorism in the 21st century is a shape-shifting beast, blending political and religious fervor into asymmetrical warfare. Imagine a battlefield where the players don’t wear uniforms or follow rules. Now, picture a new player in this field: women. And, no, they’re not just behind the scenes. They’re in the trenches, sometimes quite literally. So, what factors drive women in France to engage in terrorism, and how did they initially escape recognition as a significant threat? Let’s dive into this intriguing and uncomfortable shift in the landscape of terror.
Shattering Stereotypes: Why the “Fragile Woman” Trope is Dangerous
The traditional view of radicalized women usually paints them as victims—pulled into extremism by economic hardships or a rough upbringing, or perhaps vulnerable immigrant backgrounds. But, what if this perspective is fundamentally flawed? Take the film Le Ciel Attendra, where Marion-Castille Mention-Schaar shows young women from non-disadvantaged French families falling into extremism. It’s not poverty or desperation pulling them in; instead, it’s often a misguided idealism, some distorted “empowerment” through violence. And that’s precisely the danger—assuming only specific types of women are prone to radicalization blinds us to a much wider threat. Not every young woman radicalized into violent extremism is a helpless pawn; some are driven, intelligent, and ideologically committed to the cause. Focusing on stereotypes leaves the door open for others to slip under the radar.
From Supporting Roles to Frontlines: Women’s Evolving Role in Terrorism
Women’s roles in terrorist organizations have come a long way. Traditionally, they were background players, logistical supporters, or simply partners to male jihadists. But as the need for unnoticed operatives grew, women found their place in terror networks as active agents. Look at the case of Hayat Boumediene, partner to Bataclan attacker Amedy Coulibaly. Far from being a passive follower, Boumediene actively organized finances and executed scams to fund terror attacks. With fake pay stubs, she secured loans, sold cars, and funnelled cash for weapons—all in plain sight, leveraging her unsuspecting identity as a woman. And she wasn’t an isolated case. Women have become increasingly visible, and in 2015, France witnessed its first female suicide bomber. These are not women who merely “strayed” or “followed”; they are individuals making a chillingly deliberate choice to wreak havoc.
Time to Update Our Playbook: The Need for Gender-Inclusive Counterterrorism
The reality of women’s involvement in terrorism necessitates an update in counterterrorism strategies. France’s intelligence and security agencies, historically male-dominated, often lack the insight imperative to navigate female networks in radical spaces. In 2013, for example, the DGSI (General Directorate for Internal Security, France’s domestic intelligence service) employed only one woman for every seven male agents. Gender-inclusive intelligence could change the game. Women agents, positioned to interact in gender-segregated spaces and better detect radicalization signs among other women, can close gaps in surveillance. Plus, it’s time to abandon the bias that treats female criminals more leniently. Recognizing these women for what they are—committed extremists—rather than outliers, strengthens security efforts.
Conclusion: Redefining the Threat of the “Army of Roses”
The “Army of Roses” is far from a romanticized idea—it’s a real, growing threat. Failing to see women as capable perpetrators only gives extremists more room to operate. In recognizing the full scope of this evolving landscape, we equip ourselves more effectively to meet the dangers lying ahead. For if these women know that their strength has often been underestimated or ignored, we know there is nothing more dangerous than an invisible enemy.
Bold Promises, Fragile Realities: Trump’s National Security Dilemma
Written by: Zoe Leousis
Edited by: Rebecca Larsson Zinger
November 7th, 2024
It is no secret that President-elect Donald Trump is notorious for making outlandish promises in support of his reelection, often with little regard for their legality. Promises such as “reversing China’s entry into the World Trade Organization” and “bringing back waterboarding,” highlight his tendency to make bold claims without considering the practical implications (Trump-O-Meter: Tracking Trump’s Campaign Promises, PolitiFact). While many dismiss these statements as mere attention-seeking, Trump’s false national security promises pose a significant threat, particularly in an increasingly complex global landscape. In an international legal framework with imperfect enforcement, a President who “continues to say he will reduce the United States’ participation in international institutions” and allows impulsivity to guide his decisions, becomes an unreliable ally and potential adversary (Chilton 2017). As we examine Trump’s reckless promises, it becomes clear that his approach has real-world implications, particularly in how he interacts with neighboring countries.
A glaring example of this alarming behavior is Donald Trump’s conduct towards Mexico. Since the beginning of his presidency in 2017, continuing into his current election campaign, the country has continuously served as a prop in his dangerous narratives. For instance, consider the 2019 cartel ambush on American citizens in northern Mexico, which was met with a tweet from Trump declaring that “this is the time for Mexico, with the help of the United States, to wage WAR on the drug cartels and wipe them off the face of the earth” (Carpenter 2022). Or more recently, when the Grand Old Party, more commonly known as the Republican Party, asked former U.S. Defense Secretary, Mark Esper, if the military could “shoot missiles into Mexico to destroy the drug labs,” stating, “they don’t have control of their own country,” and insisted on doing it “quietly.” (Levin 2022).
While it is unlikely that such extreme measures would be implemented, their negligent suggestion threatens to undermine the trust between the United States and Mexico, revealing a dangerous strategy that prioritizes aggression over diplomacy. These statements reflect not only a troubling militarization of foreign policy but also an alarming disregard for Mexico’s sovereignty and the complexities of international relations.
These threats to global stability are not confined solely to friendly neighboring countries, but have taken to an international stage too, such as the Trump administration’s “January 2020 drone strike on Iranian General Qassem Soleimani outside Baghdad, which was a brazen violation of Iraq’s sovereignty” (Carpenter 2022). Similarly, to possibly incite a national crisis for Russia, in 2022 Trump suggested to Republican National Committee donors that “the U.S. should ‘put the Chinese flag’ on its military planes, ‘bomb the shit’ out of Russia, ‘and then we say, China did it, we didn’t do it, China did it, and [let them] start fighting with each other’” (Levin 2022). Outlandish actions made towards countries that the United States already has antagonistic relations with are particularly dangerous, since they can be interpreted as credible threats and result in escalating tensions that may lead to conflict. Such actions are generally illegal under international law, as stated in Article 2 Section 4 of the United Nations Charter “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State” (Charter of the United Nations 1945).
It is scary to think that a leader who makes such reckless statements and has only become increasingly emboldened could regain power. Though the former reality T.V. Star repeatedly jokes about important national security matters, his indiscretion cannot be overlooked as harmless. Flamboyantly aggressive rhetoric reinforces the need for increased militarization and weaponry, therefore creating a hostile global landscape and contributing to the overall security dilemma. The executive of the world’s dominant military force should prioritize diplomacy and stability, ensuring that U.S. actions reflect a commitment to international norms. As we move forward, it is crucial for citizens and leaders to understand the dangers of such rhetoric and how it not only jeopardizes long-standing partnerships but also escalates conflicts that threaten peace and security worldwide.
Works Cited
- Carpenter, Ted Galen. “Dangerous: Why Did Donald Trump Want to Attack Drug Labs in Mexico?” Cato.Org, 6 May 2022, www.cato.org/commentary/dangerous-why-did-donald-trump-want-attack-drug-labs-mexico.
- Charter of the United Nations. United Nations, 1945.
- Chilton, Adam. “Has Trump’s Promised Assault on International Law Materialized?” Illinois Law Review, 29 Apr. 2017, illinoislawreview.org/symposium/first-100-days/has-trumps-promised-assault-on-international-law-materialized/.
- Levin, Bess. “‘No One Would Know It Was Us’: Trump Thought He Could Fire Missiles Into Mexico and Blame It on Another Country.” Vanity Fair, Vanity Fair, 6 May 2022, www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/05/donald-trump-mexico-missiles-mark-esper.
- Trump, Donald. “Trump-O-Meter.” O, www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/. Accessed 27 Oct. 2024.
Leave a Reply