by Laura Rozen 

In relatively brief remarks Monday night, President Barack Obama sought to strike a delicate balance, justifying his decision to use force in Libya while assuring a doubtful nation that the U.S. military actions would be limited and low-risk. Obama built his case for intervention by arguing that swift intervention in Libya was necessary to avert a humanitarian catastrophe on the scale of the 1990s Bosnia genocide. But while Obama repeatedly attacked Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi for creating that impending catastrophe, he insisted that international military action would stop well short of toppling the Libyan dictator, and declared that U.S. allies would soon take over leadership of the operation.

"I said that America's role would be limited; that we would not put ground troops into Libya; that we would focus our unique capabilities on the front end of the operation, and that we would transfer responsibility to our allies and partners. Tonight, we are fulfilling that pledge," Obama said, saying the 28-member NATO alliance would take over command of all military functions in Libya starting on Wednesday.

With Gadhafi's forces closing in on the rebel stronghold of Benghazi ten days ago, "the United States and the world faced a choice," Obama said at the National Defense University. "Gadhafi declared that he would show 'no mercy' to his own people. He compared them to rats, and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment."

"We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi -- a city nearly the size of Charlotte -- could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world," Obama said. "It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen. And so nine days ago, after consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress, I authorized military action to stop the killing."

While making the case for action to skeptics, Obama also defended the limited U.S. military mission in Libya from critics on the right who argue the mission will not succeed until Gadhafi is overthrown.

"There is no question that Libya — and the world — will be better off with Gadhafi out of power," Obama said. "But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake."

"If we tried to overthrow Gadhafi by force, our coalition would splinter. We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground, or risk killing many civilians from the air," Obama said. "To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq."

Libya's former envoy to Washington Ali Aujali - who broke with the Gadhafi regime - praised Obama's remarks and his decision to intervene in Libya.

"On behalf of the Libyan National Transitional Council, I would like to express deep gratitude to President Obama and the American people for their commitment to protect and assist the Libyan people," Aujali said in a statement Monday. "While the situation in Libya still remains very fluid, the intervention of the United States and the international community has saved tens of thousands of lives."

Washington foreign policy observers said Obama had walked a fine line in his first major -- and some critics charge belated -- address to the American public on the Libya intervention.

"Obama effectively made the case for the urgency of U.S. and international action in the face of an impending humanitarian catastrophe," said George Washington University Middle East expert Marc Lynch, who has consulted with the White House on Libya. "He also was right to include the crucial point that not acting would have been not only a stain on America's image but would have given other dictators in the region a green light."

Lynch said that he is not sure, however, how the president "will deliver on the promise to not escalate or use ground troops if this doesn't work ... and how the U.S. will act if things get ugly in other Arab countries."

"What I think is vital is that [Obama] paint for Americans a picture about how this kind of American leadership, in which we lead by letting others lead, works in practice," said former Clinton administration speechwriter Heather Hurlburt, now with the progressive National Security Network. And that he "make the point that from the standpoint of limited, humanitarian objectives endorsed by the international community, it is working rather quickly and well.

"It's understandable that, given recent history, Americans experience some uncertainty with this model," Hurlburt continued. "But it is the kind of progressive leadership we were in fact promised."