Yes, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, President Barack Obama needs to offer the American people a clear definition of the United States’ goals in Libya.

Thanks for pointing that out, sir.

As The Associated Press reported Thursday, Boehner and other Republicans criticized what they see as Obama’s opacity over the U.S. mission in Libya.

“The American people deserve answers to these questions,” AP quoted Boehner as writing in a letter to the White House. “And all of these concerns point to a fundamental question: What is your benchmark for success in Libya?”

We might ask Boehner similar questions, such as, “What are the benchmarks for success in Afghanistan, what were the benchmarks for success in Iraq and what role ą if any ą should Congress play in identifying those benchmarks?”

Some of the same Republicans who are grousing about the U.S. mission in Libya, which Obama has said should be a short-term one, supported the Iraq war without apparent reservation.

The twin wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost thousands of American lives, left many more of our military personnel permanently disabled and added to the astronomical federal debt in numbers that would fry the average calculator.

Forgive us if we detect a note of hypocrisy in the current Republican outcry over what we hope and pray will be a short-term offensive in Libya.

With that written, we add that Obama should stick to his pledge to keep American ground troops out of Libya. This nation can’t afford to get involved in another protracted conflict in the Middle East or elsewhere. Our military is overextended as things stand.

Let’s hope our commander-in-chief recognizes these difficulties, as we have every reason to believe he does.

In a way, political posturing over Libya holds inherent dangers for the president and congressional Republicans.

If Boehner and his colleagues come off as being too doveish on the Libya question they could be portrayed as having denied the validity of “the Bush doctrine,” which we’re told has something to do with spreading freedom to oppressed people around the world.

And by being too heavy-handed in his commitment of American forces, Obama could further offend the peacenick-progressives in his own party, thus alienating an important part of his base.

Yet, what should America do to support Libyans who want to oust Moammar Gadhafi, a brutal dictator who has turned his country’s guns on his own people? We can’t rightly stand by and do nothing. But how much assistance is too much?

Also, what are the risks that by getting more involved in Middle East affairs, we could be playing into the hands of Islamic fundamentalists who want to paint America as the Great Satan who meddles where he doesn’t belong?

However you answer that last question, you have to acknowledge that, for America, Libya should not be, and isn’t about to be, another Iraq – well, we hope so.

The bottom line is Congress and our president should work toward compromise on American foreign policy, while recognizing the White House’s historic role in shaping that policy.

Even hypocrites should be capable of working together when lives are at stake.