The United States is at war in Libya. Surely there's a lot to say, but I wish to focus on the question of justification. The public, I think, tends to rank justifications for war:

1) The most compelling: self-defense; responding to aggression against the U.S.

2) Using force to secure a resource or interest of the first magnitude for the U.S.

3) Defending a close ally who has been attacked

4) Protecting innocent civilians from a massive, deadly threat

5) Intervening in a foreign civil war on the side of friends

6) Bullying someone we don't like

Now in Libya 1), 2), and 3) are unavailable. That leaves 4), 5), and 6), and the Obama administration (and the U.N. Security Council) chose 4) as the rationale for the operation, protecting civilians, even though what the United States is really doing is 5), intervening in a civil war on the side of the rebels. But imagine how public opinion would react should the President announce the truth: that it is helping the people of Libya depose a tyrant. This is (U.N-authorized) humanitarian intervention, which seems more palatable than the more offensive-sounding "taking sides in a civil war."

None of this has anything to do with libertarianism, sorry. Or maybe it does.