So I turned on the speech. A minute and a half later, I turned it off, choosing to read the transcript for both expediency and the retention of my dinner.
So as far as I can tell, we started blowing shit up because
Which brings me to the logical points:
1. Obama laid out no actual compelling national interest. Agree or disagree, I can't think of any other president who didn't lay out some compelling national interest. And as I laid out in my post defending Obama's power to launch such an attack as he did, one requirement is that any military action must have a compelling national interest.
2. The mission is to stop the killing? To last for how long? And what are the conditions for victory? Or is this an open-ended non-commitment for no other reason than it was a popular bad guy to bust the balls of? The word for this is nebulous. As many have said, we can't be the world's policemen. Which appears to be our exact mission.
3. As I noted above with excessive use of the strikeout tag, there are plenty of hot zones all over the Middle East where the same problem is playing out. Yet we haven't intervened in any of them. We've barely gotten a strongly-worded (for Obama) teleprompter speech for most of them. A lack of consistency plays here. That, or Gaddafi did something to piss off the UN, which is why they decided to jump into the fray. And I'm not going to pass judgement on why other countries have taken action. I assume they're involved for some compelling national interest. Which brings us back to point number one.
So, having analyzed why Obama took this action, we return to the Obama Doctrine: WTF!