Obama rightly goes case by case in Mideast

Make no mistake about it -- the goal in Libya is regime change. President Barack Obama made that clear in his address to the nation Tuesday, as he laid out his reasons for intervening there and sketched out a pragmatic, but necessarily nuanced framework for U.S. policy in the fast-changing Middle East.

Libya and the world would be better off with Moammar Gadhafi out of power, although we were skeptical about getting involved in this civil war. He's a brutal despot with a history of terrorism. The question is, how far should we go to remove him? The president didn't provide any details.

Unfortunately, the U.S. can't advocate a target hit on Gadhafi, even though that's the surest route to regime change. That would risk fracturing the coalition. So we're left with other, more acceptable options for ratcheting up the pressure on him to give up power, including economic sanctions, providing intelligence and logistical support to aid the rebellion, and arming the rebels, something administration officials have hinted they're considering. The 11-day-old, multinational no-fly zone has been a success. Gadhafi's promised massacre of civilians appears to have been averted although rebel forces have yet to regain momentum.

But the push for regime change should not include putting U.S. troops on the ground in Libya. Obama repeated Tuesday that's something he won't do. The public needed, at minimum, that clear statement of his intent. It shouldn't have had to wait nine days after U.S. forces were involved to get a formal explanation.

But anyone expecting an "Obama doctrine" -- a broad statement of policy about the use of military force in other turbulent Middle East nations -- was likely disappointed. That expectation is unrealistic. What Obama delivered instead was a thoughtful list of factors he would weigh case by case in making such decisions.

He said he wouldn't hesitate to use military force unilaterally to defend the nation's people and core interests. Of course, that's as it should be. He also acknowledged some hard truths. The United States can't dictate the course of change in the Middle East, and it can't intervene militarily wherever repression occurs.

But in situations like the one in Libya -- where it's our values and less-than-vital interests that are threatened -- Obama said we should only use force in concert with other nations, and only when there's a good chance that intervention would be effective and the costs acceptable. That pragmatic approach to the use of power is reassuring.

It's the calculation that led to a U.S. military involvement in Libya that, so far, is both limited and successful. A humanitarian disaster was imminent. The Libyan people asked for help. A multinational coalition stood ready to assist. The United Nations sanctioned intervention. And there was a good chance that a no-fly zone would be effective and cost few, if any, American lives.

A case-by-case analysis isn't as satisfying as the certainty of a full-throated doctrine. But it's the best approach to a complex region where each nation -- its history, people, leadership and relationship with the United States -- is different. A black and white, doctrinaire approach won't serve us well in that world of grays.