Obama War Speech: Good Stuff Cheap

COMMENTARY | It was a well-written speech, delivered in a skeptical atmosphere, and more than a week late. President Obama purposefully avoided specifics and instead launched into a self-congratulatory panegyric of noble purpose as he tried to explain his order to bomb Libya. It reminded me of the Ollie's Bargain Outlet slogan: "Good stuff cheap."

President Barack Obama tried to appeal to our compassionate natures — our concerns for justice, individual rights, and the American Way. President Obama defined the Libyan action this way:

"(But) when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act."

The speech was an elaborate scold of an unstable dictator, expressing grave concern that "we were faced with violence on a horrific scale." Obama broadly characterized the brutality and rapacious history of the 42-year reign of Moammar Gadhafi.

That parallel brutalities were ongoing in Iran, Cote D'Ivoire, Syria, Sudan and other places in the world was not mentioned. In focusing America's attention on Gadhafi alone, President Obama observed the first rule of legal debate: Don't open the door to other points of view.

Believing in Obama's version of the Libyan bombing requires what the philosopher Kirkegaard called a "leap of faith." The existence of God cannot be proven, said Kirkegaard, but must be attained through a "leap of faith."

Neither can the number of lives saved by bombing Libya and establishing a no-fly zone be proven. Americans are inclined to make "leaps of faith" toward God -- not toward government.

The president who campaigned in opposition to two American wars capriciously begins a third in a region that is destabilized and volatile.

After the speech, many remain skeptical toward what they are being told about the new war in Libya. A John Boehner spokesman circulated an e-mail to news outlets shortly after the speech:

"Americans still have no answer to the fundamental question: what does success in Libya look like?"

The skepticism toward the Libya airstrikes are compounded by criticism from the left, and undermined even by the defense secretary's declaration last week that Libya was not in our vital interest. Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich derided the president's position, saying "America is now the policeman of the world again."

Major Democratic Party figures like Nancy Pelosi praised the president for his "courage in taking this action" but tended to emphasize the "limited American participation."

There might be stronger approval if American political leaders were certain the rebels were imbued with American ideals. Such ideals would include equal rights for women and gays, responsible democratic government, responsible economic development, and freedom from religious persecution for Christians and Jews. The most ardent administration proponent of U.N. internationalism won't place any bets on that outcome.

If not for those freedoms, Obama might ask himself what else we're fighting for. If we're fighting to replace a dictator with a destabilizing and dictatorial Islamist hegemony, it's a betrayal of American values and interests.

Among the various factions of the Libyan rebellion are jihadist Islamic militants who fought against the U.S. in Iraq. Arming them would be at odds with the safety of our troops and our vital national interests.

The perception is strong that the U.S. has been subcontracted to the Arab League, whose members largely refuse to fight to expel the dictator.

The targeting of Libya could be the start of a chaotic civil war which will be bloodier than the humanitarian crisis Obama wants to prevent.

Anthony Ventre is a freelance writer who has written for several weekly and daily newspapers, for Demand Studios, and for AOL Online. He is a former news director for radio station KPEN in Los Altos, Calif. He enjoys news and business writing.