Back when the “kinetic military action” (formerly known as war) began in Libya a few months ago, I suggested that it was not a humanitarian action, but rather taking sides in a civil war. I have since amended my position. We are taking the losing side in a civil war.
After weeks of dropping lots of kinetic “stuff,” the President retroactively justified his action by stating that our actions were aimed only at preventing a humanitarian crisis. He suggested that Qaddafi was about to cut off water to hundreds of thousands of people in Misurata. So it followed that we must drop bombs because apparently dropping water was out of the question.
Then the President stated unequivocally that targeting Qaddafi and regime change were not our objectives. In fact, he stated, unequivocally again, that such a policy would be a mistake. Mistake, his words, not mine.
Of course, there is no question that Libya -– and the world –- would be better off with Qaddafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means. But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.
So it should come as no surprise that targeting Qaddafi as an attempt at regime change is exactly what we are now doing. And not through those nicey-nice non-military means the President extolled just two months ago.
We, and yes that means we, are now dropping bombs on Libyan Presidential palaces, killing Qaddafi’s son and grand-children. This is what happens when you are desperately seeking an exit strategy for something you should not have begun in the first place. Collateral damage is what you call other people’s dead family.
So now what have we achieved? Are we winning the war, eh kinetic military action? Nope. So now what? Even if you kill him, then what?
Congratulations, Mr. President. We are the humanitarian crisis we have been waiting for.