A friend points out a civil war at the Nation sparked by our intervention in a civil war in Libya. Robert Dreyfuss wrote a blog post bashing the Obama womenfolk who backed military action, headlined: “Obama’s Women Advisers Pushed War Against Libya.”
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.
Katha Pollit was not amused, firing back with a post titled “This Just In: Women Are Not All Pacifists.” Writes Pollit:
The piece is dotted with arch and sexist language-the advisers are a “troika,” a “trio” who “rode roughshod over the realists in the administration” (all men) and “pushed Obama to war.” Now it’s up to the henpecked President to “reign (sic) in his warrior women.” Interestingly, the same trope-ballbreaking women ganging up on a weak president-is all over the rightwing blogosphere.
How have we missed this trope here in our little corner of the rightwing blogosphere? Up next: Why interventionists are from Mars and realists are from Venus.
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://spectatorworld.com/.