Libya? What's next?

I am a supporter of President Obama. I believe his actions as it relates to Libya may have placed our nation on a road that I don't think we should be on. I listened to his speech on the Libyan issue. I was impressed with his moral outrage at the potential carnage in Libya at the hand of Libya's government. I personally agree the potential for carnage is untenable.

Notice I said personally. Does the president's personal indignation demand the utilization of our military to stop such bloodshed. Now the argument can be made our actions (Yes his actions evoke the collective we!) were not unilateral. It appears NATO and many of its member countries are on board with this military intervention. Nevertheless, whether unilateral or in consort with our NATO allies, when does the potential for human carnage demand our military be deployed? What set of circumstances provides the impetus for our seeking NATO support in order to intervene? Is it sufficient the leader doing the actions is one we hold in disfavor? Do the oil deposits in a country and its exporting of the same to the United States enough of a reason to let the bombs fly?

Humans inhumanity to humans is, sadly to say, perpetual. There will always be a regime committed to the brutal treatment of its citizens. Without a clearly articulated set of standards, the motives for our actions will always be suspect. I am not arguing for unanimous consent or agreement. I do believe, however, we the people should have a clear understanding of the parameters that will place our sons and daughters in harms way. As one In The Middle, I would greatly appreciate a rigorous dialogue in order to begin to set forth a framework for action. Our actions in Libya may be represented as an escalation of the PERCEIVED anti-Islam bias. I do not ascribe to such a view. Without a well articulated standard for intervention, we heighten the potential for the erroneous characterization of our motives.

I am In The Middle.