Where Were They Going Without Ever Knowing the Way?

Yes, I know. The title of this blog post is borrowed from a 1998 hit song by Fastball. Oddly enough, I didn't choose it because we're now just over a week from the start of baseball season, but rather because of the recent crisis in Libya and the approach that President Obama has decided to take.

Unless you've been living under a rock, you know that our military is now pretty much officially engaged in what could be categorized as a third war. After Moammar Gadhafi announced that he was going to have "no mercy" in crushing the rebellion in Libya, several of our allies, including Great Britain and France, decided that it would not be a good idea to sit idly by and watch thousands of innocent civilians get massacred. So a multinational coalition was formed to begin imposing a no-fly zone over Libya, and President Obama, as reluctant as he is when it comes to leading us into war, decided to join the coalition.

The president has actually taken heat from both sides on this issue. The left, as always, is opposed to America's involvement in any war overseas, and is undoubtedly shocked that their savior would even consider lauching attacks on Gadhafi's air defense system. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), one of the most devout liberals in Congress, has called Obama's decision an "impeachable offense," mainly because he did not get approval from Congress before sending our troops to Libya. Other Democrats have gone on the record as criticizing the move as well.

On the right, politicians and pundits alike are decrying the lack of a clear objective in the campaign against Libya. What is our goal? Why are we there? They'd like more concrete answers to those questions before expressing any type of support for the president's actions.

As for the public, in keeping with the growing trend in our society, they are sharply divided on this issue. A recent Fox News poll showed that 51% of Americans support President Obama's decision to commit troops to Libya, while 49% oppose it. The gap doesn't get any narrower than that.

Even I am not sure yet about where I stand on Obama's decision. If you know me at all, then you know that I have very strong convictions and that I usually know right away where I stand when a situation is presented to me. But I can honestly say that it hasn't been that way with regard to Libya.

On the one hand, I want Gadhafi taken out. I've wanted him taken out ever since December of 1988, when 189 Americans were killed in the Lockerbie bombing. We know from our intelligence that Gadhafi ordered the bombing, and the fact is that our troops should have been on Libyan soil by January of 1989. But we never went in, and for the last two decades Gadhafi has been a sponsor of terrorism. He's played both sides of the fence at times, even assisting America in rooting out some members of Al Qaeda following the 9/11/01 attacks. But he is no friend of the United States, and his rambling, incoherent speeches at the U.N. have shown us just how delusional and dangerous he has become.

On the other hand, we have to ask ourselves who we are aiding. Obviously we're against Gadhafi, but then whose side are we on? You might say, "We're on the side of the people." OK, but who are these people? It's been said that there are opposing factions within the rebels themselves. Will those who come to power be a friend to the United States? Will they support us in the war on terror? I don't think anyone can answer these questions right now.

Even worse is the ambiguous communication coming out of Washington. Just over a week ago, President Obama said, "Gadhafi has to go." But within the past two days, he said that regime change in Libya is not our objective. Rather, we are there to protect innocent people from being slaughtered by their brutal dictator. The general in charge of the operation in Libya reiterated the President's statement, but I'm very puzzled by it all. I mean, didn't we just launch strikes on Gadhafi's compound, nearly obliterating the place? If removing him is not our objective, then why did we target his compound? Something just doesn't add up here, and few things make me more angry than people insulting my intelligence.

I guess I would say that I'm more inclined to support military action in Libya than oppose it. However, I also want our president to come out and say, "Here is our goal. We are going to remove Moammar Gadhafi from power and look to establish a democratic government in Libya that will be a friend to the United States. We will bring Gadhafi to justice for his ordering of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, finally bringing peace to the victims' families who have so ardently clamored for justice all of these years."

But that's not going to happen. So as usual, we the people are left with a lot of gray to sort through in order to decide whether or not we want to get behind the president. Obviously, our biggest concern has to be the lives of the brave men and women who have been deployed to Libya, and that they do not die in vain fighting to achieve goals that are obscure at best. Say what you want about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; at least our objectives there were clear and we are committed to achieving those objectives before we pull out.

It will be interesting to see how the president defines our role in Libya moving forward. For now, I am supporting his decision, but I reserve the right to change my position if he fails to establish clear objectives and communicate them effectively to the American people. It's been said over and over that our country failed in the Vietnam War because we never defined our mission clearly enough, and didn't set goals that were both attainable and measurable. I only hope the war in Libya doesn't turn out to be the same, otherwise we'll one day look back at this multinational coalition and say, "Where were they going without ever knowing the way?"