Why Libya and not Sudan/Ivory Coast/North Korea/Iran/Syria/Congo/etc.

There are a lot of valid arguments for and against the military intervention in Libya. That's what makes Obama's decision to use US forces there so difficult, and why anyone who comes down as an absolutist on this issue ("We should definitely intervene" / "War in Libya is horrible") are both flawed premises. Everyone should concede that this is a complicated issue.

But one argument against intervention that I find utterly invalid is that we shouldn't intervene in Libya because we haven't intervened in other places with equally or greater humanitarian concerns. For example, Congo presently has a massive human rights catastrophe where civilians are "killed, raped, arbitrarily arrested, pressed into forced labor, and looted, with nearly 2 million people displaced and a further 145,000 as refugees in neighboring countries." Some say that it is inconsistent to intervene in Libya when we refuse to take action in places like Congo.

This is a false dichotomy. Think of a doctor who has dozens of patients with a variety of serious ailments, some of whom were terminal - but who could only save some of the lives. Of course, the doctor would choose to help the patients that had the greatest chance of survival, and in a way best targeted to help them. Libya, Obama has I think correctly calculated, represents the humanitarian that America can best help, with the least harm to American interests. It's a weighing of interests, and it means taking action in some places and standing idly by in others. But it is not inconsistent.