So What Are We Doing In Libya Exactly?

So what are we doing in Libya, exactly? President Obama tells us that it’s his policy to removed Qaddafi from power, yet that it’s also US policy not to try to kill Qaddafi. Mr. Obama also tells us that these “policies” aren’t in the least contradictory. American military commanders, obviously uncomfortable, tell us that given the mission parameters and restraints imposed by our political non-leadership, it is entirely possible that they can and will successfully accomplish the mission they have been given, yet leave Qaddafi comfortably in power in Libya.

I’m tempted to ask whether this state of affairs is an Onion satire, or whether we have merely taken leave of our national senses. The saving grace is that, more and more, Mr. Obama has separated himself from America; he represents himself. That he has taken leave of his senses--to the extent that he ever had any in terms of foreign policy--can scarcely be denied.

The invaluable Caroline Glick, writing at Real Clear Politics (here) advances several convincing theories: (1) Mr. Obama has, as a fundamental understanding of American prestige and power, the unshakable belief that America is an evil, imperialistic power that is primarily responsible for all the trouble in the world. (2) Any nation aligned with America, any of our allies, must therefore be complicit in America’s evil. (3) The UN is the ultimate and only legitimate actor on the world stage and as such, a perfect vehicle to restrain and diminish American power and prestige.

To these theories, given credence not only by Mr. Obama’s words, but by his actions, I would add: (1) Mr. Obama has a real and abiding hatred for America and her people, a large percentage of whom he has called “enemies,” and insulted with implications of racism. (2) He has demonstrated reflexive support for communists and their allies around the world and in America. (3) He has a complete lack of respect for democracy and the Constitution, which he obviously regards as an anachronistic impediment to his socialistic goals. (4) He has a fundamental belief that America is a racist, evil society and is willing to implement racism in reverse as a means of settling the score. (5) As a man who is at odds with American ideals and democracy’s imperatives, and as a man with no interest in foreign policy, and with no experience, he has no core foreign policy principles except those that will be harmful to America. (6) He reflexively caters to, supports and boosts Muslim interests.

Ms. Glick asserts that America’s traditional interests in the Middle east have been: (1) Guaranteeing the free flow of low cost oil to America and the global market. (2) Supporting regional governments that will assist in the first goal at the expense of American enemies. (3) Suppressing jihadists and others hostile to America.

With these ideas in mind, what, exactly are we doing in Libya? If these theories are correct, and I suggest that they are, everything Mr. Obama has been doing since taking office is easily understood. A man with no core principles aligned with American interests would be expected to dither interminably when presented with foreign policy crises which he would consider an annoying distraction from his Socialistic remaking of American society. And so he has dithered interminably. Such a man would be expected to be anything but a leader, and so he has not lead. Such a man would be expected to seek the permission and the cover of the UN, and so he has. And in a nation with dramatically rising fuel costs, he would be expected to shut off domestic production and to pursue policies on the world stage that would further threaten affordable energy supplies, and so he has.

Do we know who these “rebels” in Libya are? No. Do we know their ultimate agenda? No. Can we be reasonably assured that if Qaddafi is deposed, that Libya will be friendly to America and her allies? No. Do we have any idea what will constitute victory in Libya? In fact, are our currently policies aimed at achieving anything there that might remotely resemble victory? No and no.

Under the right circumstances, when American vital interests are implicated, the expense of military action is not a concern. But under the present circumstances, where we are in real fiscal danger, where we are protecting no legitimate American interests, we continue to pour Tomahawk missiles into Libya at, arguably, a million dollars per bang.

By all means, read Ms. Glick’s article and ask, so what are we doing in Libya, exactly?