What's Up With That?

Okay, here I am, baffled again. America voted President Obama into office partly on the promise to get us out of Iraq. After taking office, the president was loathe to commit more troops to the conflict in Afghanistan. He ended up sending troops, but considerably less than were requested. The latest news was from Rasumssen that said that 52% of Americans wanted all the troops out -- both Iraq and Afghanistan. Afghanistan was always "the good war", the one we should have gone into because of the direct threat from al-Qaeda to America. Iraq wasn't so popular, even though the majority of the government believed that there was a high threat of weapons of mass destruction there. No, that wasn't a good reason to go into Iraq.

So what has me so confused? Here we are blowing up Libya. What's up with that? It is abundantly clear that Libya is not a threat to our country, and, in fact, no one is saying that it is. No, the prima facie reason we are bombing Libya is a protection of "innocents". Now, wait, when the Sudan was inflicting genocide on its people, the U.S. did nothing. We didn't send armed forces. We didn't stop the attacks. We didn't defend the innocent. So why now in Libya? When the freedom fighters from Iran begged for our assistance, we ignored them. No help for the innocents there, either. "No, no," we are told, "the official position is that 'it is U.S. policy that Gadhafi needs to go.'" Oh, okay, so it's time for a regime change ... which was the wrong thing to do in Iraq, but is right now. Huh? I'm sorry; I'm not getting it.

Now, I'm not in favor of a dictator blowing up his people, but I'm also wondering about the advisability of the U.S. flying into Libya and forcing a change in government. When did it become our mission to force democracy on all nations? And if we remove Ghadafi, what will replace him? I used the term "innocents" above in quotes because the "innocents" we are protecting are armed and fighting. What's that all about? We don't like Ghadafi, sure, but when did it become right that we attack a country because its government is trying to end a rebellion? If France, for instance, decided that Wisconsin was being unfair to its unions, would it be fine with us if they bombed Wisconsin? When we went into Afghanistan and then into Iraq, many proponents tried to hoist the "Just War" theory. No one with any sense likes war, but there are times when it is necessary -- just. Under what possible application of "Just War" theory could this whole thing in Libya be considered just? This isn't making any sense to me.

Really, I'm just not getting it. The president has been "anti-war" from the start. "Let's get out of Iraq. Let's not send more troops to finish the job in Afghanistan. In fact, now it's time to leave Afghanistan. Really, we shouldn't be fighting at all." Unless, of course, it's a dictator he doesn't like? Or is it our job to make every nation a democracy? (The ramifications of that line of thinking are staggering.) On what basis can we do this in Libya? When did it become our job go overthrow a dictator? If there is such a mandate, what about our allies like Saudi Arabia? What are we trying to accomplish? On what basis, with our attacks on Libya in mind, can we abandon Iraq and Afghanistan? How is this consistent with President Obama's prior stances, promises and statements? I don't know. I don't get it.

(I would have posted this earlier, but 1) I've had limited Internet connection since I'm on vacation and 2) I really needed to do that "Hell" series -- it's important. So if you've all already thought this stuff through and figured it out, relax. Me? I'm still not sure.)