Libya: What is the Objective?

American cruise missiles and warplanes joined forces with a coalition of 12 NATO countries in bombing military targets within Libya, in support of the U.N. mandate March 17 calling for the protection of Libyan civilians from attacks by their own government.

The resolution was in response to almost abject begging by the League of Arab Nations, which immediately condemned the attacks on Muammar Gaddafi's air defenses as soon as they began.

Which kind of leads me to wonder why we're getting involved at all. Sure, protecting civilian life from attacks by its own government is a good thing, and something which good nations will feel compelled to do.

But if that's the reason we're bombing Tripoli, then why aren't we also dropping Tomahawks on Burma, Sudan, Somalia and a host of other countries where governments are actively engaged in killing their own people?

No, I get the feeling that while the politicians are making hay out of the "protect the civilians" part of the mission, perhaps in this case they would really just like to see Gaddafi gone. And that's not necessarily a bad thing - the guy has been a nuisance to the West for 40 years.

Then again, so has Fidel Castro, but we're not bombing Havana.

What concerns me about Libya is the vast number of arms that are being distributed (and looted) from its arms depots. I predict we will be seeing those again in future conflicts around the world. The global black market for arms thrives on this sort of chaos - weapons left behind when the U.S. left Vietnam are still popping up today in the drug wars in Mexico.

Arms are durable goods, and that means they may present more of a danger to world peace than drugs or tyrants like Gaddafi.

Don't be surprised if you see Israeli tanks putting some hurt on Gaza in the near future, and then being condemned for it by most of the world.