Be careful what you wish for

Before he left for a five-day tour of South America, President Obama approved the deployment of U.S. air and Navy forces to create a no-fly zone over Libya. On St. Patrick’s Day, coalition forces took action, beginning a series of targeted bombings on Moammar Gadhafi’s forces.

More recently, the Western allies were forced to intensify their efforts as Gadhafi placed snipers and tanks in residential neighborhoods in Libya and caused terror on the streets.

Since then, Obama has insisted that our intervention in Libya will be limited and short-lived. It should come as no surprise that the president is anxious to hand over control; the bombings in Libya are costing us an estimated $100 million per day.

On March 25, NATO finally agreed to take over command of the operation and enforcement of the no-fly zone. However, the U.S., France and Britain will continue to be in charge of the more difficult duty of driving back Gadhafi’s ground forces.

Thus the U.S. remains involved in its third war in a Muslim country and, once again, it’s our war to lose.

The U.S. is providing almost all of the weaponry and a majority of the personnel and technology necessary for war. What if the U.S. abandons the war effort altogether? Will France, Britain and the other allied nations have the military and financial wherewithal to sustain a long-term conflict? Of course not.

Essentially, even after the U.S. relinquishes control to NATO, the war will still cost us hundreds of millions, if not billions, because we will still be providing most of the personnel and weaponry in order to control Gadhafi’s ground troops.

Many in Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, were concerned that U.S. military resources were committed without clearly defining the mission and what our role would be. There have also been legitimate questions raised about whether the president should have asked for permission from Congress before engaging in the war. But the real question should be, What are we doing in Libya?