Libya: ‘Here’s why I was wrong’

Libya: ‘Here’s why I was wrong’

That’s the article I’d like to read by everyone who predicted a stalemate or quagmire in which the United States eventually would have to insert ground troops. (For those of you too hurried to click through to all them links, I am calling out the following members of the diverse quagmire/stalemate coalition: Dov Zakheim, Andrew Sullivan, Alexander Cockburn, Anne Applebaum, Richard Norton-Taylor, Melanie Clarke, the German government, the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, the Xinhua news service, and the Beirut Daily Star.)

Who wants to go first?

Meanwhile, from Fareed Zakaria, here is one of the best summaries I have seen of the meaning of the Libyan war:

The Libyan intervention offers a new model for the West. It was a humanitarian mission with strategic interests as well — support for the Arab Spring and the new aspirations of the people of the Middle East. It was also a new model in that it involved an America that insisted on legitimacy and burden sharing, that allowed the locals to own their revolution. That means, however, that it is in the hands of the Libyans. They can avoid the mistakes of Iraq, which makes the challenge before them even more daunting. But it is a challenge they have eagerly sought and one for which they will find help from friends around the world.