Women, War and The Libya Strategy

It does not need to said that Women and Men are different. There was even a book written ("Men Are From Mars/Women Are From Venus") highlighting our obvious differences. Perhaps less obvious, although no less important, is that there are also many areas where Women and Men are the same. However, time and time again we seem to only focus on the difference. During the 2008 Democratic Primary there was a lot attention paid to gender difference and its impact on our society. I remember reading an article in the New York Times written by Nicholas Kristof that pointed to many different historical examples of very powerful and very successful Women. Kristof's article spoke eloquently about these women, what they accomplished and how they governed. Kristof's article implied that these examples can serve as indicators as to how Women would govern in the United States. He argues that a female President would govern better and more effectively than her male predecessors because Women work with and lead people differently than Men. Kristof's article was particularly interested in exploring why Women who have been in power have been so successful. Kristof wrote: "Scholars find that women, compared with men, tend to excel in consensus-building and certain other skills useful in leadership." The prospect that Women excel at consensus-building is particularly interesting when you consider who has been the main advocates for the Air-Strikes and No-Fly Zone policies in Libya. It gets even more interesting when examine how they have advocated for these policies. There is no question that Secretary of State HIllary Clinton and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice have worked very hard and very successfully at building an international consensus for the current policies and interaction in Libya. The fact that they are Women and the fact that they have (and presumably continue to work) at building consensus for this effort is, according to the Kristof article, predictable. However, what is less predictable is how quickly these decision have been elevated to the level of mythology. In today's New York Times, Maureen Dowd had this to say about Sec. Clinton and Ambassador Rice: "There is something positively mythological about a group of strong women swooping down to shake the president out of his delicate sensibilities and show him the way to war. And there is something positively predictable about guys in the White House pushing back against that story line for fear it makes the president look henpecked." Ms. Dowd, Let me be clear: There is nothing mythological about anyone (regardless of gender) advocating to GO TO WAR. It is Day 5 of the Air-Strikes in Libya and already hundreds of people have been killed and millions of dollars have been wasted. With all the attention being paid to the international consensus and the power of the Women who worked to build it (despite the push back by Men and their "delicate sensibilities") it is fascinating to consider what we aren't talking about. One thing has been lost is that despite having an international consensus on how to do what we are doing and a consensus that it must be done right now, no one seems to have a clue as to why we built the consensus in the first place, what "victory" looks like, and when it will end. I guess Women and Men aren't that different after all.