Obama's Speech.

It wasn't enough. It was too vague and didn't answer any of the specific questions I had -- I don't know that it actually said anything new that hasn't been said by other administration officials in the last few days. Maybe, I just now realize, this is because the administration itself doesn't HAVE any more specifics to give. If so this is really worrying. Lets hope it isn't.

To start. Some of the specific questions I have for Obama:

- What are the military's specific orders/goals?

- What happens if things go bad and the coalition or the opposition asks for a renewed American military involvement?

--

Going through the speech, my impressions:

First, it seems that the U.S. has taken sides in this civil war. It's not just a humanitarian mission:

- Obama says Clinton will meet with opposition leaders. We're not recognizing them yet, but is this a step in that direction? Clinton isn't meeting with Gaddafi representatives, I imagine.

- We will "assist" the opposition. What does that mean? Financially? Will we arm them? Political support?

- The coalition forces will keep the pressure on Gaddafi and protect civilians. But I wonder, when insurgents are not part of an organized army, how can we tell the difference between insurgent soldiers and civilians? Aren't insurgents just everyday people who are fed up and pick up guns agains Gaddafi's actual professional forces?

Second, the main reason in Obama's mind seems to be classic American exceptionalism:

To brush aside America's responsibility as a leader and - more profoundly - our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.

This is the crux of the problem, it seems to me. I want to avoid mass slaughter, but am I prepared to act put my country reputation, finances, and lives and risk unexpected, murky results and possible getting trapped all for -- very noble -- altruistic reasons? Right now I think the answer is "no."

One reason that does give me pause is that doing this will help the gains in Egypt and Tunisia, and maybe even across all of the Middle East. We certainly DO want peaceful democracies to grow in those countries, and probably a Libyan nightmare would certainly hurt that.

Finally, one other reason why I think Obama did this: This is an example of how he thinks America should act militarily.

... [In cases like Libya] we should not be afraid to act - but the burden of action should not be America's alone. As we have in Libya, our task is instead to mobilize the international community for collective action. Because contrary to the claims of some, American leadership is not simply a matter of going it alone and bearing all of the burden ourselves. Real leadership creates the conditions and coalitions for others to step up as well; to work with allies and partners so that they bear their share of the burden and pay their share of the costs; and to see that the principles of justice and human dignity are upheld by all.

We LEAD we don't dictate. We work with others to keep an international peace. We expect others to help out however they can. This is the anti-Iraq war.

Ok, some things that are ok. BUT still, there are big unanswered questions:
- what's the involvement of troops going forward?
- if there's more violence will we intervene? What happens if the opposition or coalition asks us to use our military again?
- we will "assist the opposition" HOW???

Why I Love Bob Gates.

On Meet the Press this morning:

DAVID GREGORY: Secretary Gates, is Libya in our vital interest as a country?

SECRETARY GATES: No. I don't think it's a vital interest for the United States...

It's always a bit of a shock to hear a government official say something so simply and directly.