The Libya Dilemma of Obama

“if we try to overthrow Qaddafi by force, our coalition would splinter. We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground, or risk killing many civilians from the air. The dangers to our men and women in uniform would be far greater. So would the costs and our share of the responsibility for what comes next.”

Here was the dilemma faced by Obama. He clearly wants regime change but is mindful of the regime change disaster in Iraq. He went to UN for permission but ended up giving responsibility to NATO. His speech lauded by the US media was one of the most confused speeches made by him.
This is not surprising considering what is happening in the Middle East. He never wanted regime change in Egypt, Bahrain, Tunisia but he does want regime change in Libya, Syria, Iran. In trying to explain why he has different standards he wants to put a humanitarian face to his actions.
Trying to explain to the US public that the USA has a God given right to interfere in world
affairs while still stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan and wanting to invade Iran has to be a class juggling act which even Obama is not capable. of. The US public is not even aware how the CIA was kicked out of Pakistan after the Raymond Davis fiasco.
When Germany ( together with China and Russia) abstained from the UN resolution on Libya, the world took one more step in looking the other way in accepting US leadership in International affairs.
Much as I would love to see Ghaddafi kicked out as well as the Bahraini Shaikh and all other leaders in any country who have ruled for more than 10 years, Obama seems to have a very difficult time making that a golden rule for governance. For a country that preaches dissent and debate, the US seems to have no tolerance for Governments which may have a different point of view even if they want to come to power through a Democratic process.
Khusro