Libya the First Politically Correct War

Libya is the first war to be waged according to the rules of political correctness.  In the war of social justice there is no objective, an undefined enemy, no coordinated plan and no exit strategy.  There was a time when a country went to war there was an objective: to defend one's country from attack, defend an ally or to take property.  In Libya we have no objective, no enemy, (we are not fighting Gaddafi), nor do we know who we are fighting for.  Is this any way to run a war?

Congress, the world and the man on the street want to know why we are at war.  They want to understand the objectives and the rationale for our military intervention into the rebellion and the exit strategy. The answer is Liberalism.  This kinetic military activity is the epitome of political correctness. We are engaged in a war according to the rules of social justice.  We are witnessing the standard game plan of the left, discover a crisis, (whether real or perceived), create a villain, whip the masses into a frenzy about this villain, then not let the crisis go to waste.  Finally declare that the only solution is government intervention and throw vast sums of money at the problem, all of course, in the name of social justice.  For the first time we are engaged in a war with no intent to win.

The undefined objective is to avert a massacre that would, "stain the conscience of the world," according to the President.  Samantha Powers said that it is okay to use force in a humanitarian situation. We are killing people in a foreign land in the name of humanitarianism. We have been involved in this war for months. Again, America and its NATO allies have been killing people for these months in order to save others.  It all makes perfect sense.

The Secretary of Defense stated that Libya poses no security threat to the United States, and is of no tactical importance.  This impending massacre for the progressives was created by one phrase of a Gaddafi speech, calling on residents of Benghazi to surrender and promising there would be "no mercy or compassion" for those who stand with rebel fighters.   "Don't betray me, my beloved Benghazi," Gaddafi said, promising his troops were on their way to the opposition stronghold.

We cannot prove that he would have followed through with this threat. In fact, Amnesty International has stated that there most likely would not have been a massacre.  That Gaddafi was only threatening those who fought against him.  Doesn't he have the right to put down an armed rebellion?

There is no adversary, (remember the U.N. ruled against taking out Gaddafi), and who we are fighting for is subject to question.  In fact, there is no effort to succeed.  The goal is the short term emotional gratification that comes from the perception of trying to help.  Is there really much difference between this war and the other wars of social justice, the war on crime, war on poverty, war on drugs or the war on education?  These actions are always pursued in the name of humanitarianism.  Does this sound like Libya?  The battle is to vanquish an undefined enemy, in this case a mythical massacre.

There is no coordinated plan, just to maintain a fair fight.  One can envision President Obama and Hillary Clinton sitting in the war room wearing black and white striped shirts with whistles around their necks.  NATO has even threatened the rebels, telling them that if they kill civilians that NATO will attack them.  The problem, it is very difficult to tell the difference between armed military, unarmed civilians and the rebels.  In fact, more than once NATO has attacked and killed rebels.  We have entered a new era of playing referee at a civil war.  The allies have had heated discussions as to giving the rebels weapons and training.  We can attack Gadhafi but we cannot take him out.  That would be breaking the rules. Liberals do not understand there is only one rule of war.  The winner makes the rules.

The Allies are seeking to find a refuge for Gaddafi to live in exile.  The issue is Gaddafi has been indicted by the International Criminal Court for the current killing of his citizens.  The rules of the court state that any member nation must arrest the criminal. So he has nowhere to go.  The result is a is a fight to the end.

The President has decided that this war is of such minor importance that he is not obligated under the "War Powers Act" to inform Congress or get its consent.  And yet thousands of people have died and billions of dollars spent, but to the President this is inconsequential.

Typical of a politically correct war, the intervention has been made the situation worse.  Before, the rebellion would have been quickly over and order restored, now we have created a stalemate that could go on for decades like the Koreas.

This war is being managed to prolong it, not end it or God forbid actually win.  The result is that more people will die not fewer.  If the Libyan forces had been allowed to invade Benghazi, the rebellion would have been put down quickly and thousands of lives saved.  As we know all too well, the politically correct do not worry about the carnage left behind, or the price, if done in pursuit of the emotional high of social justice

Libya is the first war to be waged according to the rules of political correctness.  In the war of social justice there is no objective, an undefined enemy, no coordinated plan and no exit strategy.  There was a time when a country went to war there was an objective: to defend one's country from attack, defend an ally or to take property.  In Libya we have no objective, no enemy, (we are not fighting Gaddafi), nor do we know who we are fighting for.  Is this any way to run a war?

Congress, the world and the man on the street want to know why we are at war.  They want to understand the objectives and the rationale for our military intervention into the rebellion and the exit strategy. The answer is Liberalism.  This kinetic military activity is the epitome of political correctness. We are engaged in a war according to the rules of social justice.  We are witnessing the standard game plan of the left, discover a crisis, (whether real or perceived), create a villain, whip the masses into a frenzy about this villain, then not let the crisis go to waste.  Finally declare that the only solution is government intervention and throw vast sums of money at the problem, all of course, in the name of social justice.  For the first time we are engaged in a war with no intent to win.

The undefined objective is to avert a massacre that would, "stain the conscience of the world," according to the President.  Samantha Powers said that it is okay to use force in a humanitarian situation. We are killing people in a foreign land in the name of humanitarianism. We have been involved in this war for months. Again, America and its NATO allies have been killing people for these months in order to save others.  It all makes perfect sense.

The Secretary of Defense stated that Libya poses no security threat to the United States, and is of no tactical importance.  This impending massacre for the progressives was created by one phrase of a Gaddafi speech, calling on residents of Benghazi to surrender and promising there would be "no mercy or compassion" for those who stand with rebel fighters.   "Don't betray me, my beloved Benghazi," Gaddafi said, promising his troops were on their way to the opposition stronghold.

We cannot prove that he would have followed through with this threat. In fact, Amnesty International has stated that there most likely would not have been a massacre.  That Gaddafi was only threatening those who fought against him.  Doesn't he have the right to put down an armed rebellion?

There is no adversary, (remember the U.N. ruled against taking out Gaddafi), and who we are fighting for is subject to question.  In fact, there is no effort to succeed.  The goal is the short term emotional gratification that comes from the perception of trying to help.  Is there really much difference between this war and the other wars of social justice, the war on crime, war on poverty, war on drugs or the war on education?  These actions are always pursued in the name of humanitarianism.  Does this sound like Libya?  The battle is to vanquish an undefined enemy, in this case a mythical massacre.

There is no coordinated plan, just to maintain a fair fight.  One can envision President Obama and Hillary Clinton sitting in the war room wearing black and white striped shirts with whistles around their necks.  NATO has even threatened the rebels, telling them that if they kill civilians that NATO will attack them.  The problem, it is very difficult to tell the difference between armed military, unarmed civilians and the rebels.  In fact, more than once NATO has attacked and killed rebels.  We have entered a new era of playing referee at a civil war.  The allies have had heated discussions as to giving the rebels weapons and training.  We can attack Gadhafi but we cannot take him out.  That would be breaking the rules. Liberals do not understand there is only one rule of war.  The winner makes the rules.

The Allies are seeking to find a refuge for Gaddafi to live in exile.  The issue is Gaddafi has been indicted by the International Criminal Court for the current killing of his citizens.  The rules of the court state that any member nation must arrest the criminal. So he has nowhere to go.  The result is a is a fight to the end.

The President has decided that this war is of such minor importance that he is not obligated under the "War Powers Act" to inform Congress or get its consent.  And yet thousands of people have died and billions of dollars spent, but to the President this is inconsequential.

Typical of a politically correct war, the intervention has been made the situation worse.  Before, the rebellion would have been quickly over and order restored, now we have created a stalemate that could go on for decades like the Koreas.

This war is being managed to prolong it, not end it or God forbid actually win.  The result is that more people will die not fewer.  If the Libyan forces had been allowed to invade Benghazi, the rebellion would have been put down quickly and thousands of lives saved.  As we know all too well, the politically correct do not worry about the carnage left behind, or the price, if done in pursuit of the emotional high of social justice