In the final analysis, all wars are "stupid" (and ugly, and brutal, and terrifying, and tragic); and all wars are a "choice," even if that choice is as fundamental as "live free or die."

So to argue the stupidity or choice of war is like arguing about the color of the sky. Opinions may vary, but it is what it is.

It is my opinion, that to see Libya clearly, one must step far back from recent events and the narrow geography surrounding that one country. One must step all the way back to the heady days following 9/11 and the mandate from the American people that was granted to President George Bush when he called for a "War on Terrorism."

The "End" for any conflict are best set at the very beginning. The Ends are found in the mandate that justifies the hard decision to choose what we all know is stupid; to choose war over peace. As I looked at this problem while writing my thesis for the War College, I came to two mandates, and thereby, two Ends for war:

1. Vengeance: To avenge the American people against the perpetrators of the attacks of 9/11.

2. Security: To allow the American people to once again feel as safe in their daily lives as they had felt on 9/10.

Interestingly, both of these are totally subjective, emotional conditions that are only accurately measured in the opinion of the American populace rather than in any set of conditions or facts that may contribute to shaping those subjective emotions.

America was indeed at war, but I would argue that if one were to go to the granter of that war mandate, to go to the American people, and truly ask how they feel, that one would find not only that the War on Terror is over, but that it has been for several years now.

The war is over, but the mission continues. Peace is often more difficult than war, as the rules are so much more constraining. Many of our current challenges are not that we fight stupid wars, but rather that we stupidly conduct peace as war due to our failure to recognize that the war is long over.

Iraq is not a war. Afghanistan is not a war. Libya is not a war. This is peace, and of all of those three locations there is a far stronger nexus to the issues that violated our sense of security on 9/11 in Libya than there is currently in Afghanistan, and ever in Iraq. Sometimes in peace one must employ war-like violence. That should be a hard decision and never done lightly, but also never off the table either. But by recognizing that one is at peace it moves that option to the back of the table.

If we conduct peace in Libya wisely, we can create effects across the Arab World that serve to lessen the risk of terrorist attacks on the U.S. That should be our goal. We are not there to ensure victory for any one side, but rather the broader victory of a stability that allows the Libyan people a chance at liberty and good governance on their terms. How we shape that is critical and difficult and new. At least new for us. After all, we still think we are at war.