NEW YORK BOSTON |#Popular: Irish Celebrity Gossip Irish in US Politics Irish Festivals Irish Roots Irish Entertainment Offbeat Irish

Home Page > Blogs > News blogs > Periscope > Libyan stalemate is bad news for Samantha Power, Obama key advisor

Periscope by Niall O'Dowd

Libyan stalemate is bad news for Samantha Power, Obama key advisor

Posted on Wednesday, April 13, 2011 at 05:43 PM

Larger Text

E-mail

32 Comments

RSS

Archives

The continued stalemate in Libya is not good news for Samantha Power widely seen as one of the architects of the Libyan intervention.

Power, who works with the National Security Council, has been touted as the next secretary of State if Obama is re-elected but if Libya continues to be a stalemate it will not help her case.

The Irish-born Power who moved to America when she was ten, has been an outspoken advocate of tackling potential genocide before it happens.

She can justifiably point to the fact that Benghazi in the west of Libya was about to be reduced to rubble and raped and pillaged by Ghadafi troops until the US and NATO stepped in.

But the original script went wrong from there with rebels advancing, then retreating like a bad Charlie Chaplin scene before the current stalemate.

Stalemate is not good in that corner of the world, and a leaderless state, like Somalia can soon become a breeding ground for all kinds of radicals.

That is why Power and the US government are surely pushing had right now for a negotiated solution given the clear lack of hope that the rebels can outfight Ghadaffi any time soon.

Back in America Power’s higher profile after she was singled out for pushing the Libyan intervention policy has brought problems too.

She is consistently hounded, unfairly in my opinion, as Anti-Israeli and the commotion from the right wing press is all about ensuring she never gets to take Hillary Clintons’ job as some have posited she will.

So she needs a Libya breakthrough and soon if she is to remain the point person on the issue and continue her work in combating genocide.

But Ghadaffi did not survive for over 40 years by lying down easily and he may prove willing and able to outlast even the best international efforts to oust him.

That would be bad news for Power who had reckoned the tyrant would fall before this.

E-mail

32 comments

Next Previous Page 2 of 3 pages

kaydog1 | Apr 14, 2011, 06:47 PM EDT

PARENT'S, your posts are usually better thought out than 4/14/2011. Yes, things have not gone as Obama hoped (many of us predicted this outcome), but that still does not make our continued military incursion a sound idea - it's immoral, expensive, illogical, unwise, and it makes for a TERRIBLE precedent. Are we to invade everyone, then? I can't imagine where, using your logic, you would begin to draw the line. I also find it disturbing that Leftists who would scream "bloody murder!" if a Conservative ordered this foolish and illegal attack are twisting themselves into logical pretzals jumping up to support this "Obamanation" as if it were really a good and necessary thing, simply because Barack ordered it. O'Dowd, in his article above, tries to make it all about "preventing genocide", but before that it was about "protecting innocent civilians", and before that "evening the playing field with a no-fly zone", and before THAT Obama was saying that "Ghaddafi must go" which is code for regime change. However, only 1 month prior the Obama Administration was pushing a deal for a "connected" English firm to refurbish 47 million dollars worth of American surplus Armored Personnel Carriers and SELL THEM to Ghaddafi! (Congress shot THAT deal down.) So when did Ghaddafi suddenly become a "GENOCIDAL MANIAC?" Why when Barack found him to be inconvenient, of course. Don't fall into the mistake of trusting Barack to make sound decisions - he really isn't doing all that well here.

Report abuse

GeorgeDillon | Apr 14, 2011, 03:24 PM EDT

parents: So you favor attacking countries that have not attacked us? That's about 150 countries that need to start looking over their shoulders then. You must have loved the invasion of Iraq. Where to next? The leader of Yemen has attacked lots of demonstrations and his army has killed many people. Maybe On to Yemen for NATO? No? How about Bahrein--same as Yemen essentially. No? I got it-- the Israelis have been killing Palestinians for decades now. Time to bomb Tel Aviv? No? I'm confused. Sounds to me like you're a complete nut & warmonger.

Report abuse

jdi2269 | Apr 14, 2011, 12:52 PM EDT

ANOTHER OBAMA ADVISOR WITH NO EXPERIENCE!

Report abuse

Parents | Apr 14, 2011, 12:33 PM EDT

It hasn't gone the way it was expected. Qaddahi is not leaving, his regime did not fall apart, his kids are all involved and as brutal as he is, well taught. So what is next? There is a strong need for NATO maybe more now that ever. Someone has to keep control or at least try to. The protestors were doing peaceful marches when they were shot at and rounded up in the night so that it when they took up arms. Unfortunately they do need more help.

Report abuse

CitizenWhy | Apr 14, 2011, 11:13 AM EDT

More importantly, it is bad news for the US. And predictable. If NATO acts on what it is saying the stalemate may be broken. Getting rid of Qaddafi after a stalemate would be a bigger victory for Obama.

Report abuse

pmunited | Apr 14, 2011, 10:46 AM EDT

What has Cork got to do with this article? We have a decent football team, but as far as I know, Libya does not play in the Munster Championship!!

Report abuse

ochshane | Apr 14, 2011, 10:42 AM EDT

Back to the drawing-board with George her chum.

Report abuse

seanomelbourne | Apr 13, 2011, 09:22 PM EDT

Nice article Niall,just read(below) what you have dragged out of the woodwork,snarling little mutts.

Report abuse

sirpeter | Apr 13, 2011, 09:06 PM EDT

ellenfromcork..Did you not read the Proclamation of Cork independence nailed to the GPO in Cork? We have declared independence. This was done 4 years ago.

Report abuse

maloney | Apr 13, 2011, 07:57 PM EDT

Libya is another hole to throw money down along with what little was left of America's standing in the world. Power, her husband, the muslims and obama are little pawns in a much bigger game.

Report abuse

antoman | Apr 13, 2011, 07:56 PM EDT

@Ellen-google it :)

Report abuse

ellenfromcork | Apr 13, 2011, 07:26 PM EDT

@antoman-- "The Republic of Cork" ?? Tell me more.

Report abuse

antoman | Apr 13, 2011, 07:20 PM EDT

The people of the Republic of Cork are only now learning of her existence.

Report abuse

seamusmoore | Apr 13, 2011, 07:05 PM EDT

Alas,the meteroic career of the "Jackeen/Cracker Lass" crashes and burns. Have not been this broken up since Ginger left the Spice Girls!

Report abuse

kaydog1 | Apr 13, 2011, 06:36 PM EDT

Obama's attack on Libya frankly left me completely fabbergasted. It makes no logical sense. There were no threats to the USA involved, there is no profit in this for us, there are tremendous costs involved for us ($550 million prior to the "NATO takeover"), it's not our oil - the Libyan oil gets sold to France, Italy, and China. The "rebels" attacked Ghaddafi, not the other way around. (Since when is it our duty to protect every failed revolutionary from the consequences of his rebellion's failure?) It just makes no sense. The closest analogy I could come up with was if, at the close of Lyndon Johnson's tenure, with America exhausted by eight years of war in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, some genius (Samantha Power?) had said to the incoming Barack Obama, "You know what would be really cool? If we could attack Burma, too! Now that would be cool." And Barack said, "Yes...WE CAN!"

Report abuse

Next Previous Page 2 of 3 pages