By J. Randolph Evans

What is this all about – really? That has to be the question that many Americans are asking after the United States led military strikes into Libya in a civil war. No one, especially those in the Obama Administration, seems to have a credible answer to that question. Here is the scorecard so far.

Is it about weapons of mass destruction? Nope. There is not even a pretense that the current military strikes are preemptive attacks aimed at preventing the development and use of weapons of mass destruction. In fact, after the defeat of Saddam Hussein’s government in Iraq, Libya went so far as to make a public announcement on December 19, 2003 that it was abandoning its WMD program.

In order to eliminate any doubt about this issue, Libya actually invited representatives from the United States and Britain to inspect their sites and interview their people. A lot of good it did them. Undoubtedly, the Irans of the world see it all as a further illustration of why they need such weapons. It would now seem that the best protection they have against preemptive non-nuclear military strikes is their own nuclear capability (like North Korea).

Is it about an imminent threat to the United States? Nope. Notably, candidate Barack Obama said in December 2007 “the President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” Yet, everyone agrees that the only threat by Colonel Muammar Gaddafi (the “Leader and Guide of the Revolution”) was to his own people in Libya. This is not a situation where the United States was at risk of an imminent attack by the Libyan military. In fact, the Libyan military had its hands full with rebels and a civil war at home.

Is it about following the lead of the French? Nope. Early on, there appeared some angst that French President Nicolas Sarkozy might steal the international spotlight in the Libya situation. Indeed, French fighter planes were the first to attack Libyan government forces. Right on cue, President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stepped forward to commit U.S. military forces to take the lead and coordinate military strikes into Libya. Indeed, the U.S. carried the lion’s share
of the load (and expense). Then, when it came time for the U.S. to take a back seat, the French said “no” to leading the effort and the U.S. was scrambling.

Is it about furthering the cause of global peace as a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize? Nope. The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded to the person who “shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.” In 2009, President Obama received the award. Unless blowing up another country’s armies constitutes “reduction of standing armies,” it appears that the Norwegian Nobel Committee may have missed its mark. Fraternities of nations do not do so well when some countries start attacking others.

Is it about preventing human suffering? Nope. If human suffering was the test, what about the Darfur conflict in Sudan? Like Libya, it is a civil war between the Sudanese military and various rebel groups. Like Libya, the Sudanese government funds its military operations with money from oil. The United Nations Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator for Sudan labeled Darfur in 2004 as the “world’s greatest humanitarian crisis.” Fifty-one international peacekeepers have been killed. Yet, no intervention.

Is it about getting rid of an evil dictator? Nope. Muammar Muhammad al-Gaddafi has been in power for 42 years. His unacceptable tactics have been the subject of international condemnation for years. Of course, he is not alone in the category of evil dictators. There are many ruthless dictators who lack legitimate moral authority to rule. But, neither the United States nor the rest of the world has rushed to intervene militarily to advance their ouster.

In fact, the Obama Administration cannot even agree that the objective is the ouster of Colonel Gaddafi. If getting rid of Colonel Gaddafi was the objective, then there was a much simpler strategy. Rather than firing lots of expensive missiles, aimed at lots of other targets, killing virtually every other military officer in the Libyan military, a more effective strategy would have been to simply aim one at Colonel Gaddafi from the beginning. (Of course, the chances of hitting him now are approximately the same as finding Osama Bin Laden. Both are probably hiding in caves.) The only explanation for not targeting Colonel Gaddafi is that Colonel Gaddafi is not the target.

So, what is this all really about? “Because I said so” does not get it done.