Here’s a helpful tip to any aspiring writer. If you start out an essay with the following sentence:
Look, I’m a sensitive New Age guy — I cook, I do laundry, I choke up at movies (well, Gladiator, anyway).
you should probably rethink and start over. It’s the equivalent of “I don’t mean to be rude” followed by rude statement. Why do people thinks this works? Anyway, once again, conservatives show us their daddy issues. This time it’s about Libya, or more specifically, about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (it’s a twofer!)
One of the reasons Khrushchev gambled on missiles in Cuba is that he perceived JFK as a weak man when they met in Vienna. Conversely, one of the reasons Khomeini released the hostages just as Reagan was taking the oath of office was his “Ronnie Ray-guns” reputation (something the air traffic controllers ignored — which itself became another lesson for our enemies). Do you think Putin and A-jad and Chavez and the ChiComs are more afraid of Obama now? It was obvious to most of us that Hillary has more, uh, stones than Obama, but to have it confirmed so publicly for less-attentive foreign goons means they’re that much more likely to try to push us and see how The One responds.
Before you send me any burning bras, the problem is not with women leaders — the enemies of the Virgin Queen and the Iron Lady can attest to that. The problem is not even with the president having strong female subordinates. Rather, Obama’s pusillanimity has been hugely magnified by the contrast with the women directing his foreign policy and the fact that they nagged him to attack Libya until he gave in. Maybe it’s unfair and there shouldn’t be any difference from having a male secretary of state do the same thing, but there is.
Krikorian is glad we have strong women in government but he thinks it’s kinda icky too. It must be really confusing that the white male Republican Secretary of Defense was the most skeptical about an intervention in Libya.