Kinetic Miliary Action

Tonight, the President will explain to the American people why we are at war in Libya. With teleprompters rolling and eloquent words spoken, he'll try to explain the inexplicable.

At the moment Barack Obama and his advisors have committed us to a limited war, one that is justified not based on national strategic interest, but on the fact that the “international community” has decided that Mohamar Gaddafi is creating a “humanitarian crisis” in Libya.

So we drop bombs on Libyans and launch cruise missiles (at a million dollars a pop) in an effort to defeat Gaddafi’s troops (oops, I mean avert a humanitarian crisis). And if we’re successful and the “rebels” or “freedom fighters” prevail, we have accomplished what exactly?

Increasing evidence indicates that the Libyan freedom fighters we’re protecting have strong ties to fanatical Islamist movements. Some of the “leaders” of Gaddafi’s opposition are members of the Muslim Brotherhood and others have direct and irrefutable ties to al Qaida. Of course, our broadcast MSM avoids these uncomfortable details because they might embarrass the President (a man who can do no wrong in their eyes).

But the facts remain. Our “kinetic military action” (in the words of Obama’ Deputy National Security Adviser, Ben Rhodes) will assist Islamists in a takeover of Libya. It’s crazy, but it just might happen. And the reason for this is … what? The justification for it is … what? The strategic rational is … what?

Meanwhile Syria, dictator, Bashar al Assad, slaughters opponents on a wholesale level and we turn away. The irony is that intervention in Syria might actually have merit strategically. If Assad falls, Hezballah in Lebanon is weakened and as a consequence, the real strategic bad guys in the region, the Mullahs of Iran, lose influence and access to a proxy army.

But apparently, that level of strategic thinking is far too deep for the President, Hillary, and the foreign policy geniuses who populate the White House’s back offices. “Kinetic military action” (the President’s folks avoid the word “war” at all cost) can only occur to avert a humanitarian crisis, never to weaken our sworn enemy (Iran). No matter that Iran violently represses its own people and is sowing the seeds of havoc in the region. No matter that they're actively pursuing the development of WMDs.

Weakening Iran would be so imperialistic, so 20th century, so … yucky. Better to attack Libya, right?