What do the American people know about the civil war in the big North African nation of Libya - and what do we know about U.S. involvement in it?
Not very much, it seems.
We know we don't like Libyan ruler Moammar Gadhafi, a vicious, unpredictable despot. But what about the rebels opposing him? Would we like them better? We can't be sure.
There have been U.S. aerial and naval attacks on Gadhafi's forces in recent weeks. And now it is reported that U.S. intelligence operatives have been aiding the Libyan rebels.
But is U.S. involvement a wise course for our country? What is our objective, other than opposing Gadhafi?
There has been no clear, unequivocal and constitutionally satisfactory U.S. policy explanation to the American people.
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and top CIA officials have talked with some tough-questioning members of Congress. But the United States' objectives simply have not been spelled out adequately.
Libya is a huge, mostly desert country on the southern side of the Mediterranean Sea. It is bordered on the east by Egypt, on the west by little Tunisia and big Algeria, and on the south by Niger, Chad and Sudan. Libya is about two and a half times the size of Texas, with a population of about 6.6 million - slightly more people than Tennessee has. Roughly 97 percent of Libyans are Berbers or Arabs, according to CIA statistics.
We Americans don't like to see tyrannical rulers anywhere. But obviously, there are many troubles in the world that we cannot solve, shouldn't be involved in - and in which we certainly should not take military action.
And yet the Obama White House reportedly is considering "all types of assistance" to Libyan rebels - possibly even providing them arms.
Our involvement in Libya to this point is disturbing. It should not expand. And our leaders definitely should not authorize any U.S. ground forces in Libya, where there is no direct threat to the United States.