No matter what you think about the military action against Libya, there is one reality that should make us think. For what may be the first time in U.S. history, women have driven the decision to go to war; three women in particular.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton; Samantha Power, a senior aide at the National Security Council; and UN ambassador Susan Rice, are the trio behind Obama’s decision to crack down on Muammar el-Qaddafi, the murderous, seemingly crazy, leader from Libya.

Obama seemed reluctant to go in and stop him, but these women reportedly convinced him, according to a story in the New York Times over the weekend:

The change became possible, though, only after Mrs. Clinton joined Samantha Power, a senior aide at the National Security Council, and Susan Rice, Mr. Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations, who had been pressing the case for military action, according to senior administration officials speaking only on condition of anonymity. Ms. Power is a former journalist and human rights advocate; Ms. Rice was an Africa adviser to President Clinton when the United States failed to intervene to stop the Rwanda genocide, which Mr. Clinton has called his biggest regret.

Now, the three women were pushing for American intervention to stop a looming humanitarian catastrophe in Libya.

In the last few wars, our nation rushed into war based on faulty intelligence, and reasons based on national security, oil, and revenge. But this time, for a big chunk of it, it’s about humanity. Qaddafi promised to kill his own people who rebelled against his regime. The three top women in leadership in the U.S. government were appalled.

That’s at the heart of the reason these women drove a president to launch a war. It’s a telling story about why women leaders should be at the table. They bring something different to the discussion; and often it’s compassion.

That’s a reality whether you agree with their reasoning for going to war or not.

So many studies show that women in the work world are more likely to be looking out for the common good, and are more likely to be whistleblowers. “Women aren’t as sensitive as men to status in the workplace. And when you’re not as committed to the hierarchy, you can see the ramifications a little better,” said Rutgers University anthropologist Helen Fisher, Ph.D., author of “The First Sex: The Natural Talents of Women and How They Are Changing the World,” in a story by Connie Glaser in BizJournals.

And Fred Alford, author of Whistleblowers: Broken Lives and Organizational Power, added in the article, that

another factor that makes women statistically more likely to speak out and fight for what they believe in is that they typically have one foot firmly planted in another world: the family. This, he says, connects them to a different way of thinking. “In fact, when they bring that model of ethics into an organization, it must put a lot of women through hell.”

But is it worth having more women leaders when it comes the bottom line?

Some studies say yes. The more women you have at the top the more profits.

Hey, we can fight the good fight and we can make you money. What more do you need?

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]