I won't believe for a second that Obama wasn't goaded into this war by saber-rattling France and England--who are always eager for wars in which they can reap supreme economic benefits while at the same time pass the buck to Uncle Sam--and liberal interventionist foreign policy advisors Hilary Clinton and Samantha Power. Obama saw the potential for stalemate and rising opportunity costs in Libya but the ground moved underneath him in both his own White House and at the international level and he was forced to back the intervention.

The public wasn't swayed, however. A majority of Americans (according to Pew) think our priorities lie elsewhere and that we can't afford this war right now, no matter how noble and altruistic the goals may be. I for one am of this majority.

This thing in Libya has stalemate written all over it; and thus we have no idea of the potential costs. I know everyone's hoping that Ghadafi falls quickly, security returns to the streets, and the UN answers the call to send ground forces in to police the transition. But this is delusional: The US has only prolonged the civil unrest by intervening and there is no transition government in waiting. The transition that is more likely is more along the lines of Iraq or Afghanistan--which were decade-long, bloody struggles to engender internal stability. Libya won't be quick and I fear the "logic of sunk costs" is at play here; that is, the more we have invested in this "tar baby," the more reluctant we are to recognize our folly and get out.

The public is way ahead of Obama on this. They just don't see the benefits when their priorities are still the American economy, which unfortunately has for decades concentrated money in the hands of the already rich and put enormous downward pressure on middle and working class wages.

We need nation-building at home, not in Libya. And we need the President to stop downplaying our role there and pulling the wool over our eyes. What does the transition to NATO leadership actually entail, Mr. President? The polls show people aren't buying your smoke and mirrors.

There were no good choices here, but I still think that it shouldn't have been the US who made the one that was made. "Humanitarian intervention" is by definition something that a global hegemon cannot make. If France was so gung-ho, why wasn't it France that led this mission? And by "led" I don't mean the little farce with which the mission got started. While I'm no big fan of Germany's present government, I can't blame that country for staying out of it. Merkel and Co. could foresee how it would be.

But this event sheds some light on Washington's refusal to attack Iran on Israel's behalf. Bibi must be studying how this Libya thing went down to discover what else he has to try in order to get Obama to agree to flatten Iran's nuke facilities.

And as it becomes more clear that the rebels have no chance of winning, what then?

We got lost in the details of why and how much and forgot one salient point: What would happen if Gaddafi re-took Benghazi.

Gaddafi had already used all he had against civilian protestors - anti-aircraft guns, tanks, snipers - and that is even before the fall of Benghazi. Worse would have come from such a mad man if he did take the east of Libya.

Obama has taken upon himself to mend the ties with the Muslim world. He did this with Tunisia and Egypt (where the leaders were not as bloody, but could still have been had the US administration not intervened).

The US administration is applying this rule: up the game as high as the dictator does. See Secretary Clinton's statements on Syria and you'll get it.

The feeling of ire in the USA is owing to the fact that the operation has not been as quick as we have hoped.

But the rebels are after all civilians who took up arms for the first time in their lives; they have no communication means, they have no heavy artillery, and above all, they have no huge sums of cash in their coffers to spend on African infantry and eastern European snipers.

Well done Obama, for your intervention here was not based on "dodgy dossiers" or a God-driven neo-con agenda agenda.

I'm disappointed that Walt fails to see the middle to long-term implications of the changes happening in the Arab-Muslim world and their implications for our national interest and yes, our security.

GHWB also saw no national interests in Afghanistan once the Soviets withdrew. Far greater populations and interests are at stake here.

A few million refugees might not threaten us directly, but the effects would be destabilizing in a region at a fragile point in history. We are also passing from the era when would could depend on the (bought) favor of dictators and need to refurbish our image among the people.

First, you're citing the NYT as an authoritative source regarding the intentions motivating US actions in Libya? Seriously?

Second, virtually ALL wars are "wars of choice." The decision to use that term as though it means anything about this intervention is ignorant at best, Orwellian at worst.

I thought he started out on the right foot...made sense. Wave of change taking place, Tunisia on one side, Egypt on the other, Gaddafi could interfere in that wave of change in a big way. Along with his threats.

Then Obama went over the bull shit cliff. Americans are "different" we "do not turn a blind eye to humanitarian crisis" Let's see during Obama's administration they turned blind eyes, ears and mouths away from the Israeli "massacre" (using their words) of Palestinians in the Gaza. Clinton voted for the "massacre" in Iraq. And the world media along with the US MSM turn "blind eyes" away from that massive pile of dead, injured and displaced in Iraq.

As long as the US or Israel are doing the "slaughtering" plenty of blindness going around.

Obama should have stopped when he was ahead instead he spent most of the time fueling American myths about how good we are...how humanitarian. That pool of human blood that he (Gaza) and Clinton (Iraq) are standing in is just too much evidence to try to wade and bullshit his way through

Your point about Obama being guarded in his rationale for intervening in Libya is similar to mine on his overly strategic perspective. As you point out, intervening was the right thing to do. So why let all the little stuff get in the way? In my essay (http://thewordenreport.blogspot.com/2011/02/corp-political-risk-analysis-and.html), I liken Obama's cautiousness with that of corporate political risk analysis--both missing the big picture.

I agree with Walt on many of his points. At the same time, although Obama's speech may not have clarified any of his reasons for continuing and escalating such a costly and seemingly goalless war, what can he do at this point? If Gaddafi steps down or gets overthrown, the opposition will most likely immediately take over. By taking over the US will probably retreat and then who knows what could happen?

This is a very sticky situation for Libya, and for the US to get involved is unnecessary and probably not helping anything. Obviously Libya is very unstable right now and anything could change in a second, so honestly, why shake the boat?

At this point I think Obama just needs to sit back and deal with his mistakes. I don't think he needs to be silent because that would be questionable, but he should just stop trying to justify his actions and just deal with them.

The "war" against Libya is quite difficult. On the one side, i support it, because the international should fight for peace, human rights, against dictators etc. But on the side it becomes more clear that the rebels have no chance of winning...But the irony is,that the EU and the USA have make gaddafi so strong..it is unbelievable, that the international community is not learning from his mistakes..look at the same with bin laden..but anyway, i really hope, that the people in Libya become free asap..Lets see, what happens. If someone is interested in Private Krankenversicherung, you can find here in Germany necessary information about the Private Krankenversicherung