Inquirer Editorial: What's next in Libya?

As rebels retreated Tuesday from counterattacks launched by forces loyal to dictator Moammar Gadhafi, diplomats from 40 nations, including U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, met in London to consider the plight of Libya.

They had no easy answers to the question of what's next. Nor did President Obama present any simple solutions in his address on Monday night. Obama ably articulated why this fight is right for the United States, but he could not say how, or when, the nation's involvement will end.

The president gave both strategic and moral explanations for his decision to intervene in Libya, which he stressed was made "after consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress."

Noting Gadhafi's vow to show "no mercy" to the "rats" challenging his regime, Obama said allowing that "massacre . . . would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya's borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful - yet fragile - transitions in Egypt and Tunisia."

But the president suggested that the strategic interest of protecting those embryonic democracies was surpassed by this nation's historical obligation to act when oppression in other lands reaches a point where it becomes irresponsible to ignore it.

"It is true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs," Obama said. "And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what's right."

Well said, but will those words come back to haunt the president if the people yearning for freedom in Syria or Yemen find themselves similarly facing massacre? No doubt Zimbabweans wish someone would rescue them from the murderous despot Robert Mugabe.

At least Obama did say Libya won't become another Iraq, where billions of dollars and thousands of U.S. soldiers' lives have been spent over the past eight years. But war-weary Americans know the impact can be just as great if our military is asked to hopscotch across the globe.

The president did a good job of countering political critics' suggestion that he was slow to help the Libyans. He pointed out it would have been disastrous to act unilaterally. Given the mistrust of the United States in the Mideast generated by the Iraq war, it was important to wait for an Arab-inspired effort against Gadhafi to develop.

In that vein, it was important to see the United States hand over the lead coalition role in Libya to NATO. That doesn't mean this country won't continue to play a significant part, but it may help keep U.S. troops out of a ground war that looks like it will require much more aid to the rebels than maintaining a no-fly zone.

Obama expressed hope that nonmilitary means can persuade Gadhafi to give up. But that didn't seem likely as his forces advanced Tuesday. So, what's next?