US Motives Behind Libya Military Action-Brad Bannon

(Politico) Any time the United States engages in military action (the administration spin on Libya) or goes to war (the Kucinich spin), Americans have a right to know what their sons and daughters are fighting for. So President Obama owes it to people to explain why we attacked Libya but did not take action against other dictatorships like the ones in North Korea or even Bahrain. An explanation of the Obama Doctrine should give Americans a clear idea of the general principles that guide the administration's national security policy.   The President did the right thing in joining the French and British to prevent Quadaffi from defeating the freedom fighters and preventing the massacres which surely would have followed the dictator's victory. From a military point of view, NATO intervention might have been more effective two weeks ago when the rebels were close to toppling the Libyan dictator. From a political standpoint, the president would be on much firmer ground if he had asked Congress for a resolution supporting military intervention.   The administration did very well playing an inside game with the behind the scenes diplomacy  that led to the fall of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. But the presidential candidate who promised transparency on the campaign trail plays too much inside baseball in Washington. So it's time for President Obama to step up to the plate and explain his rationale for  military action in some places but not for others.  

Brad is president of Bannon Communications Research, a research, message and media firm which works with Democratic candidates, labor unions and progressive issue groups to win political and public affairs campaigns.