France “decided to assume its role, its role before
history” to stop Colonel Gaddafi’s “murderous madness,” said
French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Any war premised on French
pretentions to glory won’t end well.
President Obama eagerly hitched us to Sarko’s team,
insisting we won’t take any leadership role, without a word of
explanation to the American people about why it was worth risking
American blood and treasure.
In a prime-time speech tonight, we are promised, Obama
will explain all. Meanwhile, thanks to an agreement yesterday,
Sarkozy’s Triple Entente No-Foam NATO Latte (Britain, France and
the U.S., joined by whichever hangers-on want to control decisions)
will maintain the no-fly zone over Libya for as long as it takes or
ninety days, whichever comes first.
Obama won’t say we are at war tonight because, according
to his new spokesman, it’s not war: it’s a “kinetic military
action.” (Andy McCarthy, with characteristic brilliance, now
suggests “jihad” should be referred to as “kinetic
Islam.”)
We cannot know when or how Obama’s Libyan kinetic military
action of choice will end because, to be charitable, nobody knows
what the hell we’re doing. Least of all our president.
America went to war as the junior partner in a coalition
with the Brits and the French. Sarko was so eager to turn the
French air force loose in Libya that he recognized a “government”
of the Libyan rebels before “our” coalition was formed, and French
bombs were falling before you could say “fromage.”
One plucky French pilot scored the first kill on Thursday.
The first news reports said that a Libyan aircraft was shot down
for violating the no-fly zone.
Later reports confirmed the kill. A French fighter had
destroyed a Libyan
G-2 Galeb trainer. Which had just landed
when the French pilot fired an air-to-ground missile at it,
demonstrating the bravery, skill, and daring we expect of the
gallant Gauls.
At this point, NATO — according to Anders Fogh Rasmussen,
its secretary general — will take command of and enforce the
entire no-fly zone and arms embargo efforts and
“… protect civilians and civilian-populated
areas under threat of attack from the Gaddafi regime.” He added,
“NATO will implement all aspects of the UN Resolution. Nothing
more, nothing less.”
Which, if you’ll pardon the expression, leaves everything
about the no-fly zone up in the air, and apparently excludes any
anti-Gaddafi operations. Our aircraft are supposed to protect
innocent civilians (if any such there be, a highly dubious
assumption) from Gaddafi’s forces (unidentifiable in civilian garb)
and then apparently leave old Moammar alone to sulk in his
tent.
What rules of engagement will be imposed on our airmen to
accomplish this has apparently been left to the imagination of NATO
diplomutts to decide another day.
It is impossible to understand Obama’s case to enter this
war, but when you hear his cabinet members and senior congressional
Democrats explain it, the impossible turns into the bizarre.
Congressional Republicans and at least one Republican presidential
aspirant haven’t had the courage or the smarts to say Barry was
just plain wrong.
On ABC and NBC yesterday, Defense Secretary Gates said
that Libya posed no threat to the United States and that
intervention was not a vital national security interest. Hillary
Clinton, smiling beside Gates, talked about how wonderful it was to
have the international coalition behind us. (Way behind
us.)
Pressed on another show to justify the war, Senate Armed
Services Committee chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) couldn’t think of
any reason to have American lives at risk, so he defaulted to the
idea that the “Arab street” was happy with us for doing that. Which
sentiment was echoed by ol’ Joe Lieberman on Fox News
Sunday. The less said the better about what John McCain and
Newt Gingrich said.
McCain, of course, is rooting for regime change in classic
neocon fashion and Newt — having been on three sides of this
two-sided issue — managed a McCainesque level of incoherence. Why
can’t anyone on the Republican side say the obvious: if it’s not in
the interest of the United States to be in Libya, we shouldn’t
be?
On the morning before Obama’s speech we can guess a
little of what he’s likely to say. Actually, just
enough. He will say we need to honor and support
the troops he’s committed to war by supporting our
president.
We know that every liberal professes love and admiration
for every American soldier, sailor, airman, Marine, coastguardsman,
police officer, fireman, ambulance driver and meter maid. And, of
course, they don’t mean it.
Having spent most of their lives hating the Vietnam War
and those who fought it, liberals had a political epiphany when our
warriors kicked Saddam out of Kuwait so quickly and brilliantly in
1991. Kicking a soldier for fun became the quiet province of
private liberal conversation. Even the wackiest libs on television
always say that they support the troops.
The difference between mouthing “I support the troops” and
actions that give that support is the difference between Dick
Durbin saying that the Guantanamo Bay terrorist prison was like a
Nazi prison camp and a Gold Star mother sending cookies to the
survivors of her son’s unit.
That difference is defined by the social contract between
our nation and the troops we ask to go in harm’s way. The real
warriors, one way or another, all say the same thing: spend my life
if you must, but don’t waste it. A bond of trust based on that
contract must exist between a president and the troops. If the
president is willing to risk their lives in the absence of a
compelling need to defeat a threat to America, that trust is
violated.
President Obama violated that trust by entering the Libyan
civil war in the absence of any compelling and urgent American
interest. He risks the future of our all-volunteer military by,
without good cause, risking the lives of U.S. pilots and those who
support them in combat.
Adm. Mike Mullen, Obama’s politically correct chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that American goals can be met in
the Libyan conflict without removing Gaddafi from power. The last
time we struck at Gaddafi — the Reagan-launched air raid in 1986
— left the Libyan terror master chastened but enabled him to
recover quickly enough to order the Lockerbie bombing that cost 189
American lives. What will Gaddafi do this time if we only do what
the UN, the French, and the Turks agree we should do, and leave him
in power again?
In tonight’s speech will Obama explain — clearly and
fully — why it’s in America’s best interest to risk the lives of
our airmen over Libya? Can he give any assurance that if Gaddafi
stays, there won’t be another airline bombing or a whole string of
terrorist attacks on Americans here and abroad?
There are no facts to support any explanation Obama can
give, and any assurance he makes will be false. We should never
have engaged in the Libyan civil war, and it can have only two
outcomes, neither of which will benefit us. If Gaddafi stays, there
will be more Lockerbies, and worse. If Gaddafi goes, whoever
succeeds him will be different in appearance, but not in function.
Iran and Syria will see to that. If we were doing to them what
we’re doing to Gaddafi, we would be acting in America’s
interests.
Republicans have been too chary of challenging Obama on
any aspect of foreign policy. After the speech tonight, they should
force a vote on Libya. Let’s support the troops for real and stop
funding Obama’s war of choice before we lose one American
life.
