Whenever political reality crashes headlong into liberal dogma, it's always fun to pull up a lawn chair and grab some popcorn. So here we have The Nation's Robert Dreyfuss -- a foreign policy blogger (and former Lyndon LaRouche devotee) -- writing about why Obama went to war:
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. 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.
Ah, if it weren't for these foreign policy succubi all would undoubtedly be better in Libya. (As an aside, it Robert Dreyfuss' piece actually includes the line, "Meanwhile, Qaddafi is making some good points." Say what you want about the logic of interventionism, but the lucid argumentation of Qaddafi is probably best not invoked.)
In any event, fellow Nation blogger Katha Pollitt didn't take too kindly to Dreyfuss' peculiar take on Libya:
This Just In: Women Are Not All Pacifists
It’s been a long time since anyone seriously maintained that women in power, simply by virtue of their gender, are reliably less warlike than men—how could they be, given that men set up and control the system through which those women must rise? But apparently Nation blogger Robert Dreyfuss has just noticed this fact.
In a post entitled “Obama’s Women Advisers Pushed War Against Libya" (originally titled “Obama’s Women” tout court) he’s shocked-shocked-shocked that UN Ambassador Susan Rice, human-rights adviser Samantha Power and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were keen on intervening militarily in Libya. 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.”
I'm not a big believer in identity politics nor would I endorse everything Pollitt goes on to say, but she's got a point about Dreyfuss sounding a tad sexist. Of course, I also think fealty to certain dogmatic liberal beliefs allows leftists to excuse airing any number of patently offensive and biased thoughts they may have, so what do I know?