Speak equivocally and carry a Tomahawk missile. Or at least, that is President Obama’s addition to the long line of presidents who have made excuses for justifying action abroad.

As my fellow columnist Eve Samborn commented a few weeks ago, in “The Obama Doctrine”, the emergence of a new policy wasn’t too much of a surprise given the events of the last few weeks.

In recent days, the United States has involved itself in yet another conflict that bears little relation to the woes of the American people. Our economy is crippled, we are involved in two other wars and our polarized government threatens to tear itself apart. While the early days of the no-fly zone stressed the limits of America’s involvement, we have emerged as the natural forerunner of a combined effort that still falls under the rhetoric of an altruistic endeavor.

And although the current administration’s dedication to protecting Libyan civilians is admirable, Obama’s rhetoric surrounding a slaughter of the innocents does not constitute the whole story. Now, Washington is considering arming Libyan rebels, a loosely defined group that has emerged only with the vague descriptor of “the opposition” to Gadhafi. As soon as such militaristic action enters the picture, humanitarian efforts are disqualified. It seems that consent has already begun to disintegrate among the allies on this issue, and the legitimizing support of the U.N. will not last.

In the meantime we can rest assured, since the United States is holding on to all that dirty money that Gadhafi had stored up under his bed. “After all, this money does not belong to Gadhafi or to us,” Obama said on March 28. “It belongs to the Libyan people, and we will make sure they receive it.” And while the role of the United States as an economic guardian is nothing new, this is perhaps what I found most disconcerting about Obama’s address. At what point will the Libyan people be worthy of their own $3 billion? When can they be trusted? How many recent large-scale democratic efforts can be seen as successes in the eyes of the American people? None come to mind.

Understandably enough, Obama was sure to shy away from comparisons to the persisting war in Iraq, which marked yet another tyrannical fall amidst threats of a humanitarian crisis. “Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq’s future,” Obama said, in the same speech, “But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.”

As a world superpower, we undoubtedly have the responsibility to promote justice. However, with the rockets’ red glare and the bombs bursting in air, we must again reevaluate the issue of “peace through strength.” And while stability might come with an iron fist, sustainable peace certainly does not. As we stand on the brink of another conflict, let’s not confuse one for another.