Obama's Women of War

By Robert Dreyfuss, The Nation

Posted on March 20, 2011, Printed on March 21, 2011
http://www.alternet.org/story/150311/

The following article first appeared in the Nation. For more great content from the Nation, sign
up for their email newsletters here.

So Obama’s 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 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 the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol, Joe
Lieberman and John McCain, 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, 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, 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 10 votes in the UNSC.

Did the UNSC resolution 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. 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. Susan Rice says that the United States
is prepared to go beyond the UN resolution, 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,, 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 delicious irony, Clinton was meeting with the UAE’s
foreign minister in Paris, and here’s how the Times described her dilemma: “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 made some good points. According to CNN, 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?