“It is easy to say ”war is a man's job".
Because in history books, most of those who ascend the throne and lead armies are men. When the decision-makers are men, it is easy to conclude that war is their nature.
But the issue is not nature, but historical organization.
The structure we call the state did not fall from the sky. With the agricultural revolution, land accumulated. Land gave birth to property. Property begets inheritance. Inheritance controls the lineage. Control of the lineage led to the male line. Power became centralized. Violence was concentrated in one hand.
In pre-state societies, there was conflict, but its continuity and capacity to spread were limited. When the state emerged, collecting taxes, raising armies and developing an expansion strategy, war became institutionalized. No longer a momentary tension, war became a planned, financed and sustained state activity.
For centuries, men were at the top of that structure. That's why they were often the ones who made the war decisions. But who makes the decision is not the same as why the decision was made.
The world did not return to peace when the woman sat in the chair.
During the reign of Elizabeth I, England went to war with Spain. This was not a personal choice, but the result of the balance of power in Europe.
Catherine II landed on the Black Sea. This was not a matter of gender, but a continuation of imperial strategy.
Tomris Hatun fought against the Persians. This was a struggle for existence, not expansion.
Hatshepsut strengthened trade networks instead of military campaigns. Because this was the rational thing for Egypt at that time.
Same gender.
Different contexts.
Different imperatives.
So the issue is not hormones, it is conjuncture.
“Men take more risks,” they say. That may be true. But at no time does the state act on the adrenaline of one person alone.
There are military advisors at the decision table. There are strategic calculations. There is the assessment of financial resources. There is the balance of alliances. There is concern for internal stability. There is bureaucratic or palace control.
If these mechanisms are working, instinct is limited.
If not working, the risk increases, regardless of gender.
This is what the data shows.
Research conducted in the aftermath of UN Resolution 1325 shows that peace processes in which women are actively involved are about 35 percent more likely to last in the long term. This difference is particularly pronounced in agreements made in the aftermath of internal conflict.
Analyses by the Council on Foreign Relations point to similar conclusions.
This does not mean that “women are more peaceful”.
This shows that peace is more durable when more social groups are involved in the decision-making process.
What is decisive is how power is distributed.
When power is concentrated in one hand, when decisions are made in a closed circle and when control is weak, the risk increases, regardless of gender. The 20th century is full of examples of this. The problem was not whether the leader was a man or a woman. The problem was that there was no mechanism to stop that leader.
Let's add the economy.
Power lines.
Defense tenders and industry connections.
Global supply chains.
Geostrategic trade corridors.
Modern warfare is often not just a security reflex; it is intertwined with clusters of economic interests and competition for energy and technology.
For Turkey, the issue is institutional, not personal.
On the basis of which data and analysis are security policies shaped?
Is the decision process open to multilevel consultation or is it conducted in a narrow circle?
Does the Parliament have full access to information and can it conduct effective oversight?
Is defense spending open to independent scrutiny?
“Are ”immediate threat" assessments subject to subsequent judicial review?
The answer to these questions is more decisive than who sits in the chair.
The perpetrator of war is neither man nor woman; the real perpetrator of war is unrestrained power.
No matter who sits in the chair, if that chair is not accountable, the danger grows. If it is accountable, the fight becomes harder.
War has no gender.
Peace, on the other hand, has one condition: the real control and limitation of power.