Foolish Libyan Intervention Gets Even More Idiotic

Maybe you thought the Libyan intervention was a bad idea, that it wasn't in the U.S. interest, and just wasn't necessary. But at least a case could be made that getting rid of Gaddafi would be a positive thing, and that the intervention made his exit more likely. It made some sort of sense if you looked at it in that light. But now we find that instead of supporting the rebels, we might fight against both sides. No this isn't from Onion News Network.

Members of the NATO alliance have sternly warned the rebels in Libya not to attack civilians ... the coalition has told the rebels that the fog of war will not shield them from possible bombardment by NATO planes and missiles, just as the regime’s forces have been punished.

“We’ve been conveying a message to the rebels that we will be compelled to defend civilians, whether pro-Qaddafi or pro-opposition,” said a senior Obama administration official. “We are working very hard behind the scenes with the rebels so we don’t confront a situation where we face a decision to strike the rebels to defend civilians.”

Can this war get any more idiotic? Rather than acting rationally, supporting the rebels -- the side we chose to intervene on -- and helping them overthrow Gaddafi, we are going to pretend that we are really there to protect civilians, and are now threatening to bomb our own side. Seriously. So instead of just killing Gaddafi-supporting civilians, we'll now kill rebel civilians -- all in the name of "protecting civilians." Even the New York Times has to ask, "Who in Libya is a civilian?" The clowns running this country apparently didn't even consider that question when they signed onto a bad UN Resolution. Anyone with the slightest clue about what happens during rebellions and civil wars knows how difficult is is to separate civilians from combatants. I wrote about this issue before.