Obama Administration Says We're NOT At War In Libya! Huh?

Good Grief! Now Obama's administration says we're not at war in Libya. I guess that's why they don't think they need congress' approval to do what they're doing.

Let's see. We're shooting down Libyan fighter jets. We've fired nearly 200 missiles at various targets. We've dropped bombs on various ground targets. We've been killing significant numbers of their military.

These are, by any reasonable definition, acts/actions of war. There is a civil war going on in Libya and we're participating on the side of those fighting for their freedom from a despotic dictator and Obama said "Gadhafi must go!". That IS a war going on there and we're engaged in the interests of one side of that conflict. We ARE in a war AND we're committing acts of war in many ways. In fact, we are leading a coalition of other nations in the fighting.

As for not having troops on the ground, do you really believe we haven't had special forces on the ground there? It doesn't matter whether these people are 'special'. They ARE troops. Very, very specialized but they are members of our military. Effective air and missile warfare require good intelligence so you can bet we have specialized troops there gathering it. If captured, would they be treated as prisoners of war? Yes, by all that's 'Geneva'. Don't you hope they'd be treated as prisoners of war rather than terrorists? I do!

How is it that America's federal govenment leadership can say when we do things like this, we are not at war? We're committing acts of war against a sovereign state. It is the very definition of war. Just because Obama is reluctant to call it a war because he's been so tough on Bush about his wars and can't bring himself to look anything like him doesn't mean it isn't a war.

The American people have been through this before. Korea and Viet Nam are perfect examples. Because presidents knew Americans were opposed to entering into wars because of their experience with WWI and WWII, they avoided it by 'naming' such conflicts something else. 'Police Action' for Korea. No 'combat forces', just 'advisors' for Viet Nam.

If a president doesn't call it a war he/she can claim no obligation to go before either congress or The People to explain what he's about to do. How convenient, eh? And doing so might result in being told NO. So let's just not call it a war and I can do anything I want.

BIG PROBLEM WITH THAT 'EXCUSE': When you attack a sovereign nation (even if 'only' in the air and by missiles), its leader just might very well declare war on you! This action could INVITE war being called upon us ... by Libya or even another Arab country. The president should have to explain to congress, if not also The People, what he's about to do because his action could plunge us into something even he has to call a real war.

Doesn't this remind you of how this administration approached 'the war on terror' early on? "Overseas Contingency Operations"! Gads! These guys hate the WORD 'war' but they have no trouble with ACTS of war.

All these word games are just lame. They're irresponsible and inconsistent with the spirit if not the letter of the constitution. They are also contrary to openness. Perhaps worst, they seem to believe we're stupid or ignorant enough to fall for this word game nonsense.

Mr. President, A WAR BY ANY OTHER NAME IS STILL A WAR!

One last question that answers itself. Obama likes to also use as justification for not getting congress' approval his 'commitment' that our participation is limited and temporary and other countries will lead the real effort to keep Gadhafi forces in check. Limited and temporary? Are kidding me? When (not if!) the rest of the 'coalition' either can't get along and be effective or evaporates because we won't participate any more (we're 'turning it over to them in 'days', right?), what will we do when (not if!) Gadhafi's forces then regain the upper hand?