Responsibility to protect

I have often heard people conclude that if women were running the world there would be fewer armed conflicts and that may be true but one recent example shows the opposite. It is called the “responsibility to protect doctrine”, pushed by three women in the Obama administration that led to the invasion of Libya. 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.” These women felt that many innocents in Tripoli would be overrun by government forces led by Gaddafi and explained that it was the duty of outside forces to intervene. The result was the overthrow of Gaddafi and the total chaos that now exist in Libya. Many suspect, that it was this disastrous outcome, that caused Obama to back away from his threat against Assad in Syria, which resulted in the deaths of 200,000 innocents, the displacement of 2 million, the massive influx of refugees into Europe and the rise of ISIS. So much for the “doctrine of responsibility to protect”. It is quite stunning that mistakes of this magnitude can be made and no one seems to be held responsible.