Obama and the Female Warriors

Obama has only hesitantly led the U.S. into the war in Libya, allegedly due to pressure from influential women. The superpower is also ailing elsewhere in the Arab states. The president is under pressure for failing.

Once again, a woman summed it up. Maureen Dowd, a columnist for The New York Times, sharp-tongued and disrespectful as ever, ripped into the president. “Lady Hawks swoop. Will women be blamed if we end up in Libya for 10 years?” It is these women who have recently been named either Valkyries or Amazon warriors. They have allegedly convinced the delaying leader of the free world to get involved in the clash in Libya. That’s to say a “humanitarian intervention” with an unknown outcome — another war, possibly even in the Middle East.

The U.S. is sort of in the Coalition of the Willing against Libya’s leader, Moammar Gadhafi, but it also sort of is not. Obama, who has won the Nobel Peace prize, hesitated until the last minute before he could come to a decision in favor of a military operation in Libya and “humanitarian intervention” with a U.N. mandate. Now there is much speculation about the influence of certain women in this decision. For example, Susan Rice, the determined U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, who once, as a young diplomat, was made to watch on in despair without taking action when the genocide in Rwanda took place. Another one of these women is Samantha Power, the former reporter and Harvard professor, who wrote on the genocide in Bosnia. Perhaps ever increasingly Hillary Clinton herself, as well — who, in her own words, is “not … interested in or pursuing anything in elective office.”

Obama in the Female Trap?

It is speculated as to whether the women have made a “fighter for the good in the world” out of the constantly so cool and calculating president. Is Barack Obama in the female trap? Is he a wimp in the White House, influenced by women? His spokesperson angrily denied this, saying that none of these women were even present when the decision was made. Whether they were there or not, Barack Obama is under pressure for failing. The decision in favor of another military operation, with a possibly unknown outcome, was not taken in Congress during the president’s trip to South America. There was neither explanation nor debate. Republicans and Democrats are equally annoyed at each other.

Newt Gingrich, the powerfully eloquent Republican, moaned that the country had a “spectator-in-chief instead of a commander-in-chief.” Obama is acting as if “leading the free world is an inconvenience,” snaps Lindsey Graham, senator of South Carolina and a judge advocate. The Democratic Sen. [Jim] Webb wants a debate on the war in Congress. The conservative Wall Street Journal roars, “Incompetent and out of his depth in foreign and military affairs … so it’s funny he’d feel free to launch and lead a war. … What was he thinking? What is he thinking?”

A Break in Foreign Policy

In any case, the Libya operation marks a break in U.S. foreign policy. From the beginning, the U.S. made it clear to its allies and partners that they wanted to hand over the leading role in the military operation over Libya’s air space as soon as possible. For the leading power of the Western world to retreat has been unheard of since the end of World War II. To retreat from the Middle East, where the U.S. has undisputedly been a leading power since the Suez War debacle in 1956 with former colonial powers France and Britain? Is the U.S. really still the “indispensable nation,” as President-cum-superstar Bill Clinton put it? Is the U.S. too weak to even lead?

Anyone who wanted to could spot the new way of thinking as early as two years ago. For example, the time when Anne-Marie Slaughter, as director of policy planning for the U.S. State Department, traveled to Berlin to give a speech to the American Academy. Even then she was outlining a new, multilateral strategy. She said that the U.S. was already fighting two wars, and it was going to be more cautious. She added that in all-important questions, the partners and allies must now take more responsibility, even when it comes to the military. The message was clear. Now it is also the others’ turn: the Europeans, for example; by all means, the Germans, too. Madeleine Albright, the former secretary of state, calls it burden sharing.

For in light of the popular uprisings in the Arab states in spring, the U.S. must newly define its role in the Middle East. Obama remains caught in the old contradiction of cynical practical politics vs. longing for a better, more democratic world. On the one hand, dictators and autocrats — who are highly armed, thanks to the U.S. — have so far ensured a false sense of security and the constant flow of oil. On the other hand, there has been support from the U.S. for the uprisings in the Arabic states. Is it a case of practical politics vs. idealism, strategic interests vs. morals? William Burns, U.S. under secretary of state in the Department of State, said it would be worth it to resolve the changes in the Middle East. It is “as important a challenge for American foreign policy as any we have faced since the end of the Cold War.”

Ailing Superpower

But at the same time, an ailing superpower is appearing. The most important strategic Arab partner in the region, Saudi Arabia, is sending its troops into neighboring Bahrain to forcibly quash protests. The U.S. has done nothing. The reason for this could be because the U.S. Fifth Fleet is stationed in Bahrain or maybe because so much oil comes from Saudi Arabia. Nearby, in Israel, a conflict with Palestine is threatening to escalate. Nobody in the Israeli government is influenced by the warnings from the U.S. Iran seems to be working on atomic weapons again, undeterred by U.S. enticements or threats. In Libya, of all places, Obama is now trying to outline a new Middle East policy with its dictator, Gadhafi, who is just as unpredictable as he is tough.

“It is important for Obama to make clear that in addition to not putting American boots on the ground in another Muslim country, we will not be involved in a prolonged bombing campaign such as the no-fly zones in Iraq,” said Joseph Nye, a professor and founder of the soft power theory. “Libyans will have the responsibility of removing their tyrant.”

No Plan B

It all sounds good and reasonable, and in a way moral, but still a few small questions remain. What will actually happen if this is not successful? What will actually happen if Gadhafi simply does not step down or if he cannot be toppled? Will there be a civil war, a Libya split in two or, in the long run, even a victory for Gadhafi? Today, a U.S. general remembers, with a shudder, that a no-fly zone was once maintained for 12 years over Iraq; in spite of this, Saddam Hussein still remained in power. What happens if NATO bickers again, or if Germany, as a member of NATO, simply stays out of it all? What if not even a ship is sent to oversee the sea blockade? Will the U.S. then have to take over military leadership? Is Obama slipping into his own self-chosen war? We all hope for a happy ending, but hope was never a strategy, neither for men nor for women.