Who are we?

 On the one hand, it's gratifying to hear that the US is handing off command and that we are only involved in 2.5 wars. It ostensibly limits our involvement, our financial obligations, and in theory precludes putting troops on the ground. The ambiguity of the end state still allows for the potential that things will change and that nothing goes according to plan. We're still on the hook for the conduct of both our allies and our ostensible supportees. Nevertheless, it's an intriguing decision.

But it puts the US in a weird position. While Libya does possess oil, it's hardly a significant amount, especially when compared to the rest of the Arab world. Basically, the is unambiguously a humanitarian intervention. No one can really identify a compelling national interest for any of the countries involved. If anything, the more consistent explanation seems to be the domestic politics of the assembled countries. So, absent the crass motivations that mire discussion of Iraq or Afghanistan, Libya seems to be a case of clear humanitarian motivations. It's about as close as the international community gets to "doing the right thing".

And yet the US is sitting this one out. Our image has been badly tarnished after Iraq, and the predominant narrative seems to be that the US only goes to war if our national interests, which is to say oil conglomerates, are involved. Even though we've launched air strikes and Tomahawks, we're passing control, and credit to other countries. There's some practical sense to this, yet that sense is going untaughted. So, we're getting involved in a moral cause, for good reasons, let letting others take the credit and allowing our reputation as opportunistic, oil-hungry oil mongers to go challenged. For that, we might as well have just let the Europeans handle it and saved our missiles for our own ends.

But there's also the Obama history of being much better at doing things than at selling their ability to do things. From health care to DADT, the administration has had a surprising record of quietly focusing on their goals. As their projects have all been long-term investments that will take years to develop, the results don't even speak for themselves. Coupled with weird issues staying on message, I'm curious to hear how this will play out come election year. I'm still not sure if this represents the triumph of policy over posturing, or just simple confusion about what the message is to begin with, but all in all, it makes for an odd Presidency, one that seems to avoid the spotlight.