webmaster
© Copyright DEHAI-Eritrea OnLine, 1993-2011
All rights reserved
From: wolda002@umn.edu
Date: Sat Mar 26 2011 - 01:15:34 EST
Published on *The Nation* (http://www.thenation.com)
------------------------------
Obama's Women Advisers Pushed War Against Libya
Robert Dreyfuss | March 19, 2011
So three or four of Obama’s advisers, all women, wanted war against Libya.
We’d like to think that women in power would somehow be less pro-war, but in
the Obama administration at least it appears that the bellicosity is worst
among Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and Samantha Power. All three are liberal
interventionists, and all three seem to believe that when the United States
exercises military force it has some profound, moral, life-saving character
to it. Far from it. Unless President Obama’s better instincts manage to
reign in his warrior women—and happily, there’s a chance of that—the United
States could find itself engaged in open war in Libya, and soon. The troika
pushed Obama into accepting the demands of neoconservatives, such as Joe
Lieberman, John McCain and *The Weekly Standard*'s Bill Kristol, along with
various other liberal interventionists outside the administration, such as
John Kerry. The rode roughshod over the realists in the administration.
The press is full of reports about how Clinton, Rice and Power pushed Obama
to war. The *New York Times*, citing
insiders<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/world/africa/19policy.html?_r=1&ref=global-home>
[1], reports that Obama shifted to intervention in Libya only under pressure
from the trio: “The change became possible, though, only after Mrs. Clinton
joined Samantha Power, a senior aide at the National Security Council, and
Susan Rice, Mr. Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations, who had been
pressing the case for military action, according to senior administration
officials speaking only on condition of anonymity.”
Similarly, the *Washington Post* reports that yet another administration
woman<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obamas-shift-toward-military-action-in-libya/2011/03/18/ABiClIs_story.html?hpid=z3>
[2], Gayle Smith, joined Ben Rhodes and the troika of other women to push
for war: “Obama’s decision to participate in military operations marks a
victory for a faction of liberal interventionists within the administration,
including Rice, Rhodes and National Security Council senior directors
Samantha Power and Gayle Smith.” Opposed, or leaning against, were Secretary
of Defense Gates, Tom Donilon, the national security adviser, and John
Brennan, Obama’s counterterrorism chief.
Did the United States win legitimacy through the vote at the UN? Hardly.
Five huge world powers abstained: India, Brazil, Germany, China and Russia.
Using its enormous clout as the world’s last, if declining, hyperpower, the
United States had to dragoon tiny little countries such as South Africa,
Nigeria and Portugal to vote yes, or it couldn’t have won the nine votes it
needed to pass the resolution. At one point, Susan Rice had to scurry out to
find the South African ambassador, who’s apparently tried to avoid the vote.
The vote almost didn’t pass, since the United States, the UK and France
ended up with only ten votes in the UNSC.
Did the UNSC resolution<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/17/un-security-council-resolution>
[3] that passed demand that Muammar Qaddafi step down? No, it didn’t. While
it gave open-ended permission to the United States, the UK, France, and
other powers to attack Libya (short of an invasion), it has nothing
whatsoever to say about regime change. (Go ahead, read the whole
text<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/17/un-security-council-resolution>
[3].) It calls for “the immediate establishment of a cease-fire and a
complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians,”
demands “ a solution to the crisis which responds to the legitimate demands
of the Libyan people,” and “demands that the Libyan authorities comply with
their obligations under international law.” That, however, hasn’t stopped
President Obama from acting like he has a mandate for regime change, and US
officials are making it clear that even if Qaddafi accepts the UN's terms,
he can't survive. And Susan Rice says that the United States is prepared to
go beyond the UN
resolution<http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/19/libya.civil.war/>
[4], by arming the anti-Qaddafi forces.
So who’s in the new “coalition of the willing”? So far, it looks like it’s
the United States, the British, the French and that bastion of democracy,
the United Arab Emirates. That vicious and undemocratic kleptocracy, whose
troops recently invaded Bahrain to put down a democratic rebellion there, is
sending its jet to participate in the attack on Libya. In a painful and
delivious irony, Clinton was meeting with the UAE’s foreign minister in
Paris, and here’s how the *Times* described her
dilemma<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/world/africa/19policy.html?_r=1&ref=global-home>
[1]: “In a Paris hotel room on Monday night, Secretary of State Hillary
Rodham Clinton found herself juggling the inconsistencies of American
foreign policy in a turbulent Middle East. She criticized the foreign
minister of the United Arab Emirates for sending troops to quash protests in
Bahrain even as she pressed him to send planes to intervene in Libya.” Or
was it really a dilemma? Qaddafi has long been a thorn in the side of the
United States, so toppling him is a good thing, but the rulers of the Arab
states of the Persian Gulf have long been subservient stooges, so why not
keep them around?
Meanwhile, Qaddafi is making some good points. According to
CNN<http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/19/libya.civil.war/>
[4], Qaddafi “called the UN moves ‘invalid’ because the resolution does not
permit intervention in the internal affairs of other countries,” adding:
"Libya is not yours. Libya is for all Libyans. You will regret it if you
take a step toward intervening in our internal affairs.” And he “asked Obama
what he would do if such an armed movement controlled American cities. ‘Tell
me, how would you behave so I could follow your example?’” While farfetched,
it’s an important point. Whatever else it is, the battle in Libya is an
internal matter and a civil war. There’s no indication yet that Libyan
forces are carrying out genocidal massacres, although undoubtedly the
fighting is brutal and bloody. Under what provision of international law
does the United States have the right to muscle the world’s nations into
supporting a UN resolution giving Washington, London, Paris and Abu Dhabi
the right to attack Libya?
Like this blog post? Read it on *The Nation*’s free iPhone App,
NationNow.<http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/nationnow/id399704758?mt=8>
[5]
------------------------------
*Source URL:*
http://www.thenation.com/blog/159346/obamas-women-advisers-pushed-war-against-libya
*Links:*
[1]
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/world/africa/19policy.html?_r=1&ref=global-home
[2]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obamas-shift-toward-military-action-in-libya/2011/03/18/ABiClIs_story.html?hpid=z3
[3]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/17/un-security-council-resolution
[4] http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/19/libya.civil.war/
[5] http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/nationnow/id399704758?mt=8
----[This List to be used for Eritrea Related News Only]----