First, let's be clear what this is minus the PC nonsense. It IS war we're waging in Libya. Attacking another sovereign state on its land or in its airspace IS an act of war. Doesn't matter whether the attacking is done with 'only' our planes and missles but not troops. The 'reasons' for doing it are also irrelevant. By definition, attacking another sovereign state IS an act of war which means we are 'at war with Libya' whether we 'declare it' or not.
In fact, history shows that, ever since 'The Great War' WWII, American leadership has been reluctant to call our actions acts of war. War is ugly so if you deny it's a war, then it's obviously something else more 'benign', right? Hmmmm. Sounds like total Political Correctness rather than God's honest truth to me.
Democrats couldn't bring themselves to call the 'Korean War' a war at the time either. It was sold to Americans as a 'Police Action'. We entered the war not actually attacking North Korea but we joined the South Koreans in their actual war against North Korean. We WERE at war with our friends against the North Koreans. They were killing our troops and we were killing theirs, intent on driving them out of South Korea. Yes, there were troops on the ground so it was different from Libya in that regard but it was, as in Libya now, an attack against the military of a sovereign nation who were invading South Korea. We WERE engaged in an act of war by any definition whether the PC crowd 'deemed' it a war or not. That 'Police Action' grew into one of the most brutal conflicts we've been in.
Same with the Vietnam War. It started out as an 'assistance'. We sent 'advisors' to South Viet Nam to help that government defend itself. They were invaded by and at war with North Viet Nam. Democrats who got us into that conflict too couldn't bring themselves to call it a war and certainly not a 'Police Action' because they knew Americans wouldn't fall for that line again. Our troops were on the ground and killing the enemy in a theater of war. Therefore, we were technically and factually 'at war' with the North Vietnamese army, just not on their soil or airspace ... yet. They were killing our 'advisors' and our 'advisors' were killing them. The game changed dramatically when we started sending in major quantities of troops, bombing North Viet Nam and attacking what air force and navy they had there. Nevertheless, we joined our friends, the South Vietnamese, in war against an aggressor. We were at war with North Viet Nam from the get-go, regardless what our action was called, regardless what we called our soldiers there. Democrats put us into that war as well. For the third(!) time in 2 1/2 decades.
Both were wars and both were wars of choice because we weren't being attacked. We fought both wars for bigger reasons than only helping our friends however. We felt that we needed to stop the spread of communism which was a brutal form of government that was being forced on other countries militarily. Both North Korea and North Viet Nam were trying to spread communism to their neighbors by force and we stood against that. In the halls of congress that was probably the primary reason they wanted us there in both cases.
So, in addition to acknowledging the fact that we are at war in Libya, one must ask why have we chosen to do this? Is it simply to save the citizens from senseless slaughter by their government? Hmmmmm. A tough call PC-wise. It is at least partially the reason for sure. But what about our fear of fundamentalist Islamic dictatorships that sponsor terrorism and support the spread of it in the region and throughout the world?
The reasons we're there matter but, regardless what those reasons are, we are at war. Just because we don't have 'troops' on the ground doesn't make it less so. Just because none of our military have died there (yet) doesn't make it less so. I have no doubt that the threat of terrorism is part of what's behind our effort there but our leadership won't call it that for strictly PC reasons. It's dishonest. And we won't say it's a war for the same reasons we wouldn't call the North Korea and North Viet Nam things wars. A rose by any other name ...
No comments:
Post a Comment