When President of the United States Barack Hussein Obama says it is not, evidently.

Speaking Monday night from the National Defense University in Washington, D.C., Obama claimed that [by his command] the United States started a Kinetic Military Action against Libya in order to prevent a slaughter of civilians that would have stained the world’s conscience and “been a betrayal of who we are.” 

He then stated that he ruled out removing Libyan leader Moammar Kadhafi because trying to oust him militarily would be a costly mistake.

The Leader of the Free World then announced that NATO would assume command over the entire Libya operation on Wednesday. While this action symbolically keeps his ideologically driven promise to allow the other countries in his Coalition of the Unwilling to take over command authority, it does nothing to illuminate when the end of our involvement is or what the endgame of Obama’s KMA is supposed to be.

Carefully avoiding calling the Libyan offensive a WAR, Obama desperately attempted to justify why he involved America in his international coalition.

According to Scooter, his brilliant move had stopped Kadhafi’s advances and halted a slaughter that could have shaken the stability of an entire region:

To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and — more profoundly — our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.

Obama also said, during his address to the nation, that:

For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and as an advocate for human freedom. Mindful of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to solve the world’s many challenges. But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act.

Waitaminute, Scooter.

Per reuters.com:

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Libya was not vital to U.S. interests but the broader Middle East was, arguing that instability in Libya could undermine democratic transitions under way in neighboring Egypt and Tunisia.

“I don’t think it’s a vital interest for the United States. But we clearly have interests there,” he told NBC in an interview taped on Saturday and broadcast Sunday.

To further muddy the waters, an Administration official said yesterday that it was not any sense of precedent that guided President Obama’s decision to intervene in Libya.

Denis McDonough, the administration’s deputy national security adviser told a bunch of reporters, away from the cameras, that:

We don’t make decisions about questions like intervention based on consistency or precedent. We make them based on how we can best advance our interests in the region.

He went on to explain that there were compelling reasons to get involved in Libya as opposed to Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen and Syria, four other countries in the Middle East where pro-democracy crowds have battled authoritarian governments.

White House press secretary Jay Carney was asked by a reporter on Monday about an interesting report:

There was a report out of West Point in 2007 about the people going through Syria to get into Iraq to fight U.S. troops, and that report had about a fifth of those going in to fight U.S. troops from Libya.

There was also a Libyan opposition group that was affiliated with al-Qaeda. And my question is, how concerned is the administration about the possible presence within this broad group of Libyan opposition figures that there are those who fought jihad against the United States in Iraq, or are affiliated with al-Qaeda or affiliated groups?

According to Carney, the administration had

obviously spent a lot of time looking at the opposition in Libya and speaking with opposition leaders.

What we have seen in Libya is something that’s national and organic ( like Iran in 1979?), where, as we’ve seen in other countries, the people of Libya have expressed their desire for greater participation, greater voice in their government, more representation. But beyond that, I don’t have anything specific on elements of the opposition that would be of concern.

Something smells fishy here…and it’s not the Potomac River.  Can you say Caliphate?

So how much is Obama’s Odyssey costing Americans?

Per George Stephanopoulos at ABC News:

One week after an international military coalition intervened in Libya, the cost to U.S. taxpayers has reached at least $600 million, according to figures provided by the Pentagon.

U.S. ships and submarines in the Mediterranean have unleashed at least 191 Tomahawk cruise missiles from their arsenals to the tune of $268.8 million, the Pentagon said.

U.S. warplanes have dropped 455 precision guided bombs, costing tens of thousands of dollars each.

A downed Air Force F-15E fighter jet will cost more than $60 million to replace.

Our Best and Brightest are in harm’s way, 1/6th of our fellow Americans are on Food Stamps, gas prices have risen 50 cents per gallon since the first of the year, and the man who is supposed to be our country’s greatest advocate is more interested in being a part of an international coalition, intervening in a civil war in Libya, and telling Brazil to Drill, Baby, Drill!

What in the Wide, Wide World of Sports is a-goin’ on here?

KJ UPDATE 7:15 AM CENTRAL:  NATO just announced that there will be a delay in their “takeover” of the Libyan KMA.

I’m shocked, I tell you.  Shocked!