Convincing Argument

Sullivan makes a convincing case against intervention in Libya.

This is how many wars start - by initiating relatively minor interference with good, even noble intentions, before getting sucked into a far deeper role in an intractable conflict. Resisting that temptation will be the real test of Obama's strength. He is, after all, only president because he opposed a dumb war in Iraq. He surely doesn't want history recording that he started another one.

and also, this:

The Bush administration went into Iraq with a multitude of objectives, from finding and destroying weapons of mass destruction to building a new democratic country in the heart of the Middle East. But even at the highest levels, U.S. officials disagreed over how central the creation of a democratic Iraq was to American ambitions and interests.

This ambiguity of purpose helped create a serious dilemma: The United States undertook a complicated, multifaceted occupation and nation-building project without the planning and resources required for it to succeed. Yet, even after Obama’s speech Monday at the National Defense University, it remains unclear what the president considers an acceptable outcome in Libya.

Tough calls. They dynamic today is undoubtedly different that in 02 and 03. The biggest major difference is that Al Queda has been rolled back and we are not flush with cash anymore. So it makes less sense going out there to fight every two-bit dictator. Then again, there is the imminent genocide argument and we don't have time to discuss. There is also the hangover from Iraq. Tough to tell. When I look back on these things it become apparent - choices made in haste inevitably end up being bad choices. Often, it is better to just sit tight and as my history of jazz professor used to say, "save your money."