Warmonger Susan Rice Should Not Be the Next National Security Advisor

The latest buzz coming out of beltway is that President Obama plans to appoint UN Ambassador Susan Rice to the position of National Security Advisor. While Ambassador Rice was forced to remove herself from consideration for the position of Secretary of State due to the backlash against her perceived role in the Benghazi tragedy, if President Obama does appoint her as his National Security Advisor, then she will not face confirmation.

Ambassador Rice’s critics seized upon her role in the Benghazi incident to derail her nomination as Secretary of State. Seen as particularly damning was her claim that the Benghazi demonstrations and resulting massacre were caused by an anti-Islamic video rather than by blowback. Predictably, her defenders made allegations that her critics were being racist and sexist. However, any alleged incompetence on Ambassador Rice’s part pales in comparison with her dangerous warmongering tendencies. Ambassador Rice should not be the one whispering in President Obama’s ear about foreign policy because she has never met an interventionist war that she did not like.

Ambassador Rice was a vocal supporter of the Iraq War. In December of 2002 she said:

It’s clear that Iraq poses a major threat. It’s clear that its weapons of mass destruction need to be dealt with forcefully, and that’s the path we’re on. I think the question becomes whether we can keep the diplomatic balls in the air and not drop any, even as we move forward, as we must, on the military side.

Ambassador Rice was also a supporter of the surge in Afghanistan:

Al-Qaida is regrouping and reconstituting their safe haven; the Taliban are gaining strength. Europe is closer to that threat than we are. Yet, we all have to take it very seriously. The US has to put more resources and troops into Afghanistan, and NATO should do the same, while – to the greatest extent possible – lifting operational restrictions.

Ambassador Rice was one of the most vocal supporters of President Obama’s unconstitutional “kinetic military action” in Libya. So eager was she for war that she spread the preposterous rumor that Qaddafi’s soldiers were using Viagra so that they could go out and rape. While Qaddafi was a brutal dictator, the truth was that it was the Libyan rebels that were carrying out a campaign of “ethnic cleansing” against Black Libyans.

Ambassador Rice is a strong advocate of “humanitarian” interventionist wars. In 2006, she advocated using a UN force of 22,000 troops to end the violence in Darfur. Of course, UN “humanitarian” military actions will inevitably cost American blood and treasure. In a world filled with tin pot dictators who do not respect the natural rights of their citizens, there will be far too many tempting places where Ambassador Rice might suggest that President Obama engage in “kinetic military action” for “humanitarian” purposes. While she does not support arming the rebels in Syria, this opinion would not preclude a NATO bombing campaign just as it did not preclude it in Libya. President Obama’s drone campaign would make far too useful a tool in slaughtering people all over the world for “humanitarian” purposes.

Support for progressive “humanitarian” wars in addition to dubious wars to protect “American interests” overseas would only serve to multiply the number of pointless and unconstitutional wars that the United States gets entangled with. A far more cautious voice is what is needed to advise President Obama to “calm down” and curb his interventionist tendencies