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.
32 Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Switch to the desktop site to post a comment.Towngate | Apr 26, 2011, 07:25 PM EDT
Speaking of 'poging thoins ~ isn't it about time Samantha Power kissed Maummar Ghadaffis and apologised to his people.
GeorgeDillon | Apr 22, 2011, 03:58 PM EDT
"there is no t in pog mo hoin." --- You're wrong, dingo.
seanomelbourne | Apr 20, 2011, 08:11 PM EDT
Maith=good Fear=man therefore good man you see I was being nice There is no irony in misusing "slainte"BTW there is no t in pog mo hoin. quit while your behind and pick a subject with which you're familiar with.Go neiri an le leath.
Towngate | Apr 20, 2011, 06:15 AM EDT
Johnnymalbin: Your unwarrented aggression followed by an attempt at Aboriginal Gaelic, is what prompted my response.I notice you still do not offer a translation,all the same. Btw "Slainte" means the same as "Pog mo Thoin" when applied to you! Or do they not do 'irony' or 'humour' where you are?
seanomelbourne | Apr 19, 2011, 08:17 PM EDT
Towngate you finished your last piece with "slainte" if that's your total vocabulary of the Irish language please cease from making a fool of yourself. I very rarely drink myself Tgate Btw temper!!temper! Why do you pick on us poor liberals?
Towngate | Apr 19, 2011, 07:28 AM EDT
JOHNNYOUTBACK: Fine. I am quite relaxed,I assure you and I never touch alcohol -( and suggest you try to dry out sometime.) As for 'Fox'; I am aware of its reputation, but have never seen any as it is not broadcast in the civilised part of the world we live in. As for your last four words: we will have to ask you to translate ~ as we don't speak any Aboriginal languages here.
seanomelbourne | Apr 18, 2011, 07:35 PM EDT
It's ok towngate just sit down and relax with a bottle of JD and switch on your Fox reality TV show.Maith an fear laith.
Towngate | Apr 18, 2011, 11:39 AM EDT
COBBER-COBBLERS: If you haven't the wit to read your own post to help you understand a reply ~ you don't need clarity ~ you galaah ~ you need a brain! Kaydog1: when you've finished dealing with that moron in the White House - book a Quantas flight ~ there is another one on the loose in Oz! Slainte!
seanomelbourne | Apr 17, 2011, 07:34 PM EDT
Lived and worked where? clarity please.
Towngate | Apr 17, 2011, 10:32 AM EDT
SEANOMELBOURNE: In response to your unjustified attack, I would just like to inform you that I have posted very little on this subject because of my personal knowledge of the country ~ having lived and worked there ~ recent events are just too painful to contemplate. So mind your manners!
seanomelbourne | Apr 17, 2011, 01:41 AM EDT
Kaydog all wars are immoral.
kaydog1 | Apr 16, 2011, 01:03 PM EDT
SEANOMELBOURNE - A dazzling riposte, sir! Actually, not. I've just reviewed my posts on this topic, and they seem to be chock full of facts, none of which you've ever refuted. The facts and the timeline are all a matter of public record. Sir, calling something a lie is not the same as DEMONSTRATING that it is a lie. You say you've lived in Libya - perhaps you even made some friends there. How do these friends react to the idea that Obama is busily "saving" Libyans from Libyans by killing Libyans? I am no friend of Ghaddafi, sir, and I am a Conservative, and I find no moral authority that allows the US or NATO to simply dance in whereever they wish and start "burning young Libyan conscripts alive in their tanks" as GeorgeDillon posted. I don't ever expect much from the Left, Sean but I did expect better from YOU on this matter. Do you REALLY want the next President to feel free to place the US military just whereever he chooses? That's the trouble with precedent, Sean. I therefore repeat, this war is immoral, expensive, illogical, and unwise, and it makes for a TERRIBLE precedent.
seanomelbourne | Apr 15, 2011, 07:50 PM EDT
kaydog and towngate never let the facts get in the way of a good lie. As one who lived in Libya and knowing how the system worked you are full of it.
kaydog1 | Apr 15, 2011, 06:53 PM EDT
Awww, shucks.....(kicks shyly and embarrassedly at dirt clod).
Towngate | Apr 15, 2011, 06:54 AM EDT
kaydog1 : The Sensible Voice here on this subject! The Civilised world is relying on you to go to Washington to Regime-change that Monstrous Mad-Dog Obama and his blood-thirsty Irish Bitch!
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.
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.
jdi2269 | Apr 14, 2011, 12:52 PM EDT
ANOTHER OBAMA ADVISOR WITH NO EXPERIENCE!
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.
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.
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!!
ochshane | Apr 14, 2011, 10:42 AM EDT
Back to the drawing-board with George her chum.
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.
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.
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.
antoman | Apr 13, 2011, 07:56 PM EDT
@Ellen-google it :)
ellenfromcork | Apr 13, 2011, 07:26 PM EDT
@antoman-- "The Republic of Cork" ?? Tell me more.
antoman | Apr 13, 2011, 07:20 PM EDT
The people of the Republic of Cork are only now learning of her existence.
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!
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!"
Monsoonman | Apr 13, 2011, 05:58 PM EDT
Liked the take on Ms. Powers and the political machinations behind all of this. I think you hit the nail on the head, that if this doesn't turn out well, ie: Al Quaeda steps in to the void, Muslim brotherhood, or another brutal dictator...Ms. powers will be toast. There are not enough "experienced in the ways of the middle east" people in the state Department. There are plenty of Machiavellian schemers, looking for their own interests in short term political gain, but few statesmen. The world situation is reflecting that.
GeorgeDillon | Apr 13, 2011, 05:39 PM EDT
Good article, but totally amoral. Nowhere does the writer deal with the moral question: what right do Obama, Cameron, Sarkozy and the clown in Italy have to burn young Libyan conscripts alive in their tanks? Why did NATO instruct the Libyan "rebels" not to accept the peace process initiated by the African Union, and agreed to by Ghadaffi? And if these NATO countries are so addicted to bombing, how come they haven't bombed a place like Yemen, where the government has killed many hundreds of people? The world needs to realize that all bombs are bad--there are no good bombs and bad bombs, as warmongers like Cameron Sarkozy etc want to make us think. And finally, in a world where there is no longer a Cold War, why does NATO exist? To bully countries...