Making the Case

President Barack Obama made a compelling case Monday for the humanitarian necessity in imposing U.S. military will in the skies over Libya's battlegrounds. His explanation was overdue.

There was a humanitarian need, and we support the current mission conducted under United Nations Security Council resolution. But our reservations persist. They involve duration and what's next, this last part inextricably tied with ultimate goals. It's still not entirely clear what these are.

We note that a no-fly zone quickly escalated into what amounted to a no-drive zone as well. The rebels have made gains as a result. But they were routed in a key battle on Tuesday. What else are the allies prepared to do? Because one massacre has been averted does not mean that another one isn't looming.

And does the humanitarian imperative in Libya translate into the same imperative for Syria, which has mightier air defenses than Libya? Why not for Bahrain, home to the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet? We could name several more nations in crisis, from the Congo to the Ivory Coast.

Humanitarianism is laudable and still rife with slippery-slope potential. It is a course that must be navigated with a clear eye on ability, resources and necessity.

Especially necessity. Why we're there must be clear — and clearly explained.

It's encouraging that the president handed over control of the mission to the NATO alliance last weekend and pledged no commitment of U.S. ground forces again on Monday. And we appreciated the frankness in the president's statement that this will be no overnight mission. Air power alone will not dislodge Moammar Gadhafi, if that is the goal. The president suggested it was.

Some criticism of the president's handling is warranted. We still didn't hear a clear delineation of goals and how they would be accomplished. It's clear that the U.S. military believes stepped-up assaults on the Libyan military will cause it to turn on Gadhafi. And if it doesn't?

But other criticisms are bogus and partisan. They amount mostly to a charge that the president dithered. Sorry, the United States is best served by a president who deliberates deeply and consults widely when it comes to exposing U.S. military lives to danger. And the country is served just as well when such action undertaken is multilateral, buttressed by a broad coalition, rather than unilateral.

Still, the president should adopt the attitude that his explanation Monday night is just a start. He must continue to explain each step of the way.

REPRINTED FROM THE MILWAUKEE JOURNAL SENTINEL.

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM