Feeling a bit confused over exactly why we’re firing cruise missiles and flying sorties over Libya?  Don’t feel bad, the sentiment is nearly universal.  In fact, the Obama administration can’t even figure it out.

Long before the first missile was fired, President Obama said, “Qaddafi must go.”  Several days later, the President said, “we’re not attacking Qaddafi, we’re protecting innocent people from a man who said he will show no mercy.”  Then while in Brazil, Obama said, “the U.N. mission is to protect the innocent people of Libya, however U.S. policy is that Qaddafi must go.”  Huh?

The British seem to know the goal as they’ve fired a number of missiles into Qaddafi’s compound.  French jets have targeted his troops and tanks.  Worst of all, as confused as the President’s explanations have been, his own administration can’t seem to agree on what the goal is.  For example, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton seems to know that getting rid of Qaddafi is the key to success.  However, after her last statement the White House was quick to knock it down, reiterating that our only mission is to protect the people of Libya.  If we beat up Qaddafi’s military, but leave him in power, what’s been accomplished?  Anyone believe that once the world’s eyes are diverted to the next crisis he won’t wipe out the opposition?

Then we hear that our leadership role (and I use that term loosely) will end within a few days.  A few days passed and then we were told we’d transition to some nebulous organization that’s not quite NATO and not quite not NATO.  France says no to NATO control, Italy insists on it, the Brits just want another cup of tea.  So who will head up this conglomeration of leadership?  Not an American.  The President and the State Department have made that clear, but American fighters and ships will still be involved.  That’s historic, in case you weren’t aware.  The last time any American military assets weren’t under U.S. control was World War I; and even then there was indirect control from American brass.

The latest word, from various administration sources is, Qaddafi must go, but he may ultimately remain.  Ouch!  Must and may?  This is looking more like the Key Stone Cops every day!  He must go, he might stay…what in God’s name does victory look like?  How can you define an end when there’s no clear goal?  We’re told by the Pentagon that the U.N. authorization doesn’t allow for any member of the coalition to fly air support for the rebels.  Wait, didn’t the French blow up a bunch of tanks?  The Brits have struck Qaddafi’s troops outside the second largest city in Libya.  Damn, my head hurts!

It is the responsibility of the President of the United States to appear before the American people and explain what we’re doing and why we’re doing it.  No President should put our men and woman in harms way without explaining where we’re going and what we’re trying to accomplish.  The problem is, he doesn’t know himself!  This is the most definitive demonstration that this guy is in way over his head.

The President is getting pounded from the left and the right for his incoherent policy on Libya, and rightfully so.  There is nothing so dangerous for our military than to have a non-descript, confused and aimless goal.  The military operates on objectives.  One of those objectives was to knock out Qaddafi’s surface-to-air missiles.  Done.  Now what?  The military doesn’t do well on a wait-and-see plan.  They need a goal, have the freedom to adjust the path, but ultimately they have to have a goal line to cross.  This is just embarrassing.

[widgets_on_pages id=”Underpost”]