Whether we agree with the way it has occurred or not, the fact is we are at war with Libya, and more specifically with Moamar Gaddafi.   So partisanship aside, which I will admit is highly difficult but necessary, let me try to figure out this new Obama Doctrine which has led us to war, and put our military in harm’s way.   Why?

The reasoning President Obama has presented for this war is:

• A humanitarian intervention to stop the potential slaughter of civilians in Benghazi.
• We have a strategic, though undefined, national American interest.
• We have a need to support the request of our allies.  Specifically France, Italy and the UK.

Let me approach them one at a time.  First the “humanitarian interventionist” policy which is also called a “Responsibility to Protect” policy, or R2P shortened.   President Obama has referenced Rwanda as a failure to act, and Boznia-Hertzagovenia as a slow to act, response in his presentation of examples.    However, the outline of exactly what defines a “slaughter”, or what qualifies for this “humanitarian intervention” is left conspicuously ambiguous.  If you try to figure out how this is applied on an international scale, and look at the geography, you are left trying to figure out how hundreds killed in Syria, or hundreds killed in Bahrain, or several hundred killed in Yemen, or thousands killed in Iran does not qualify, yet the same consideration applied to Libya brings a different expectation of presidential behavior.   Am I the only one confused?

Even if you set these illogical inconsistencies aside, and try to support or defend the presidents’ position/doctrine, it’s virtually impossible without having a definition behind it.   Who qualifies for this humanitarian consideration?   Who has the expectation of protection?   How many bodies are needed to be considered ‘at risk’ for international intervention to be considered?   A hundred?  A thousand?   or 2,367?  Not to mention who has the decision-making authority to implement it?   Who decides who gets protected, and who does the protecting?  Is it a function of the United Nations or can any random collection of nation decide to intervene in a sovereign nation to protect an unknown citizenry from possible slaughter?   This is a puzzling doctrine to figure out, or at least to apply consistently.

Additionally, if this ‘humanitarian’ stuff is the primary reason then wouldn’t you talk about it when it first started occurring?   The Libyan uprising began on February 15th, President Obama never even spoke about it until February 26th (said his schedule was full).   Even more curious was the United Nations met in emergency session on February 24th and 25th to discuss, we were not there.   Our UN ambassador Susan Rice was 8,000 miles away in South Africa at a climate conference.  So where was the urgency?   The initial UN resolution to freeze Gaddafi assets, and refer him to the International Criminal Court was reached without us even engaged in the decision-making.   But, President Obama just took credit for it? Huh?   That February 24th date sounds familiar though doesn’t it…. oh yeah, that was the date for the Motown review dance party in the White House East Room.   While hundreds of Libyans were being strafed in the streets, President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama were hooting it up with the Motown crew.   Nah, couldn’t be, not with all that humanitarian consideration stuff weighing them down.   But, I digress…..

Second: We have a strategic, yet undefined, American interest.   This one really puzzles me.   The pentagon, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen,  and  Defense secretary Robert Gates all said  “we have no immediate strategic interest in Libya”, but yet somehow President Obama says we do.  Huh?   Secretary of State Hillary Clinton agrees with Obama.   But that is a struggle to connect how Hillary would have any knowledge of a mysterious “strategic interest” that Defense and Pentagon don’t know about.   Unless it is a humanitarian strategic interest.  Perhaps that is the case.   But that is not an American interest, that is a Libyan interest.  So I’m still stuck on this one.

Additionally, more and more information is coming out about exactly who these rebels are.   And to be completely honest, the more we discover the more evident it is they are worse than Gaddafi.  Seriously,  some of these al-Qaeda militants just left the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan where they were killing our troops, and now those same troops are protecting them in Libya.   Does that make any sense?   Add that to the influence from Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood we know of, and the fact that WMD was smuggled to Hamas and Hezbollah in late February, and the fact that Surface to Air Missiles were stolen by al-Qaeda North Africa, and there is a whole bunch to be worried about with these so-called “rebels” we are arming and helping.    Or, maybe that is why Defense and Pentagon are so reluctant to find a reason for assistance?  Maybe?

Lastly, we have a need to support our allies.   Hillary Clinton took this topic and expanded on it during the Sunday Meet the Press show where she said “our allies had no strategic interest in Afghanistan when the United States was attacked after 9-11 yet they helped us”.  Really?   I don’t remember France and Italy providing any kind of assistance for our war against terrorism in Afghanistan?  I don’t even remember seeing their names on our coalition?

Additionally President Obama referenced it during his speech to the nation on 3/28 when he said outflow refugees and immigration from North Africa and Tunisia would severely impact Italy and France.   Yes, that is indeed true.  We have previously outlined it.  It is indeed a major problem for France and Italy.   But is it a reason for us to go to war on their behalf?   Sounds more like a reason for them to be involved more aggressively than for us.  Perhaps they should have ‘all the skin in the game’ if they are going to be the benefactors from Libyan intervention.

So there you have it; all of those words and yet we still don’t know what the Obama Doctrine is or exactly how it benefits America.   These inconsistencies and oppositional arguments make it impossible to understand.   I listened to every word my president said in his 30 minute national address and I still don’t understand exactly what he is trying to do.    I was going to mention his reluctance to stake a concrete position on eliminating Gaddafi but my logical mind cannot twist or contort any more in one sitting.