Skip to content

America’s Warrior Women

FIGHT OF THE VALKYRIES: Update Tues Mar 23 3:45pm: Maureen Dowd in NYT also notes (colorfullly) the Lady Hawks vs. Male Doves split in the Administration on Libya

Breaking news 7pm: US starts bombing Libya to knock out anti-aircraft missiles, to begin enforcing no-fly-zone.

The Christian Science Monitor notes one difference between those in the Administration who argued for the war in Libya, and those who argued against it.

FOR: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, UN Ambassador Susan Rice, and National Security Council senior aide Samantha Power

AGAINST: Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, and White House chief of staff William Daley

Let me see, what difference, um, do we notice here, um,  some difference, let’s not get too essentialist here…if you figure it out, let me know.

This entry was posted in In the news, Military aid, Women and gender and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

9 Comments

  1. John wrote:

    I’d say that those who have to actually follow through with it and take the risks were against while those who have to defend inaction were for it. Classic case of people talking their book.

    Posted March 19, 2011 at 6:58 pm | Permalink
  2. Kim Yi Dionne wrote:

    in the AGAINST list, 2/3 actually served in the military… in the FOR list, 0/3.

    Posted March 19, 2011 at 8:40 pm | Permalink
  3. Anna Carella wrote:

    Oh come on, none of those three guys are going to “take the risks” – they’re all bureaucrats who will send lower ranking soldiers to do the job.

    How many women served as soldiers in the US military in the 1960s when Hillary Clinton was coming of age? When Clinton went to Wellesley (1965-69), they still weren’t letting women into Harvard (coed in 1977). Even today the military is only 20 percent female and rarely do women make it to the top ranks. If having served as a high ranking serviceman in the US military is the only way to gain credibility as a leader, then it will be a long time before women are seen as fit to run this country.

    But maybe that is the point of these comments….

    Posted March 20, 2011 at 1:26 pm | Permalink
  4. Kim Yi Dionne wrote:

    My post is not to detract from the women’s capabilities in making decisions. There was a dissertation written a few years ago that showed senior level decision makers who had served in the military were much /less/ likely to call for military action in foreign policy. What’s interesting from a bureaucratic politics perspective is that the expectation should be the opposite (military folks should want to prove themselves useful and increase their budgets).

    Posted March 20, 2011 at 5:08 pm | Permalink
  5. Jacob AG wrote:

    Hey, Happy 8th Anniversary of the War in Iraq! What were the odds that the U.S. would go to war in two Arab countries on March 19, eight years apart, Mr. Econometrician?

    Posted March 20, 2011 at 8:40 pm | Permalink
  6. Aurnan M wrote:

    I believe there is a news item out there about Amb. Susan Rice wanted a genuine humanitarian corridor established with a ceasefire in Sri Lanka in late 2008 – 2009, which did not happen, due to India and China.

    http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article1544202.ece

    This is why this is important, and what would have Col. Qadaffi done if no intervention to the people opposing him?

    Will China and /oor India ever act on human rights issues anywhere?

    “The world’s rising democracies need to decide whose side they are on”

    http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/blog/3313

    Posted March 21, 2011 at 12:45 am | Permalink
  7. david wrote:

    i’m totally against war , but sometimes people need help , moamar gaddafi spent 40 years dictatorship in libya and he deserves this

    Posted March 21, 2011 at 8:38 pm | Permalink
  8. Gabrielle D. Gaston wrote:

    I’m not going to downplay the significance of war. Wars are fought for power, beliefs, etc. There are a couple comments on this blog stating that the women listed above have not served in the military, or rather their lack of high-ranking service has somehow discredited their opinion when choosing pro-war initiatives. I’m not sure if I agree that because the women may not have seen hand-to-hand combat that they are somehow incapable of making a viable decision for their country. I believe this stems from different believes about the masculinity of war. Some believe that war is inherently masculine and that women are inherently cooperative therefore are not likely to engage in war. In actuality there have been many female rulers in history that have waged war on others. War shouldn’t be an aspect of the current world that is only held for men.

    Posted March 22, 2011 at 11:11 pm | Permalink
  9. Diana wrote:

    Maybe it has nothing to do with whether they served in the military but rather the fact that women always want to be helpers and help the poor people getting killed by their dictator. I do feel bad for the people but without a goal, plan, and any real rational thought on how this works out I’m not sure how helpful this will be. Sometimes you can’t save the whole world and you also in other cases can’t save people from themselves. You have to put some rational thought into it.

    Posted March 23, 2011 at 4:02 am | Permalink

One Trackback

  1. By America’s Warrior Women | Global Health Hub on March 19, 2011 at 10:55 pm

    [...] the rest here: America’s Warrior Women AKPC_IDS += [...]