yes, of course it was a mistake. By almost any measure, it was a mistake. It all sounds good on paper, helping bold rebels fight a tyrannical dictator, but in reality...it kinda sucks. And what's worse is, if you can't do it quickly, Americans stop caring...which we kinda have already. When the heads of your military, both civilian and otherwise, all say that intervening in Libya is a bad idea...guess what? It's a bad idea. Politics has no business in warfare, and or decisions to fight wars. Although I applaud Obama for his initiative, and his optimism, I also don't think it was a good idea. however, if this gamble pays off somehow...it could be a big win. So, Disclaimer: I might be wrong.

Of course imposing a no-fly zone isn't an effective tool when the mission objective is regime change. And direct military intervention is not going to keep other dictators and autocrats from brutally cracking down on their own citizens. Is it not painfully obvious to everyone that the United States military is only called to action in a region when there are assets to be protected or commodities to be gained? We are blithely uninterested in the suffering of foreign people; it is not our concern, nor has it been since... ever. Leave that to the Red Cross and other independent humanitarian organizations.

The NATO led "no fly zone" achieved the purpose outlined in the UN Security Council resolution 1973 by averting the expected humanitarian disaster in Benghazi. That limited purpose is enough. It is clear now that Qaddafi enjoys a significant level of popular support and he also has backing from several governments in the region. Over the years the government of Libya delivered more to its people than other governments in Africa. Libya has the finest healthcare system in Africa with average lifespan almost equal to that of the US. Literacy levels are among the highest in Africa. Free education was available to all citizens through graduate school including foreign study for qualified students. Libyans also had open access to satellite TV and other worldwide information sources. Citizens also had the opportunity to participate in government through the jamahiriyya in committees that had operational control of government processes. But, unemployment was high and those in power often resisted change. But "taking Qaddafi" out to meet the demands of the the rebels would be a violation of Resolution 1973 and of the UN Charter.

Colonel Qaddafi agreed to the terms of the ceasefire offered by the African Union. These terms were rejected by the Transitional Council in Benghazi which demanded the ouster of Quaddafi and no role of Qaddafi in Libya in the future. How can a self-appointed group with no real legitimacy make such a demand? The only resolution to the stalemate is a free and fair election. Saif Qaddafi has stated that the only way that he could accept a role in a Libyan government was that if he were elected in a free and fair election. If Saif Qaddafi is prepared to test his legitimacy to rule in a free and fair election, on what authority does a group in Benghazi deny him the right to run in an internationaly monitored, free and fair election?

The international community should inform the rebels that they expect them to resolve their problems through negotiation and dialogue among all affected Libyans and not with NATO arms.

Serious concerns have been raised about the legitimacy of Colonel Qaddafi's rule. Thousands have already died for this cause. For the sake of his people he needs to accept a timely, internationally monitored free and fair election in which he would not be a candidate but where his son could run on his own merits.

An African Union peacekeeping force can keep the peace after a ceasefire is observed by both sides while arrangements are made for an election.

It's too soon to conclude whether or not it was a failure.

Much depends on whether you feel the objective is purely to get rid of Ghaddafi, or whether allowing a couple million Arabs to determine their own destiny without being crushed is a worthy goal all its own.

Remember that Benghazi was saved from being overrun by the air war, while 400,000 people are trapped in the siege of Misurata. If the siege is finally lifted and those multitudes are free to determine their own destiny, then yes I would say it was a qualified success.

If Ghaddafi succeeds in capturing and crushing Misurata, the next question is whether he is able to capture the east (probably not), or if Libya eventually splits back into Tripolitania and Cyrenaica. (which it was for thousands of years until after WWII.)

People are not allowed to root for the splitting of the state. But what indeed is wrong with it? Why not allow Cyrenaica be independent and determine its own future?

And if Misurata can win its independence and become a "free city" (like interwar Danzig), then why not?

MICAH ZENKO mentions : "The United States, according to Obama, would lead with "days, not weeks" of military action, thus "shaping the conditions for the international community to act together."

As part of the non- White and non-Western world, may I ask who is this International community, USA and Europe always refer to when they want to attack soverign countries like Libya.
As I recall, China, Russia, India, Brazil, most of the Muslim and Arab world, Africa and Latin America and even some progressive European are against NATO and USA attacks on Libya. Mr. Putin was in Copenhagen last week and strongly denounced the way, USA and his so called war hungry allies have misused the UN Resolution 173.

So please Mr. Obama, stop holding the international community hostage to your stupid neo-colonialism.

Kind regards
Bashy Q

The fact that it took months before the mistake in all these was noticed is what i find astonishing. The western press invents stories and after repeating their stpries for a while, they start to beleive their invented stories too. The accusation was that he will exterminate the population in eastern Libya if he takes over the place but there is no facts to back that up since he didnt do so in areas his troops took over. Any keen observe knows that it will take a serious force to push the rag tag rebllion across Sirte. Gadaffi said he was not like Mubarak and Ben Ali and thats a fact. He redistribued wealth. , embarked on lots of populist programmes and cultivated a cult hero status with a lot of the population in central and western Libya. Having been in power for over 4 decades , its stunning that some supposedly serious rulers felt that all that is needed to topple him were a couple of airstrikes and a bunch of runaway prisoners and islamist masquareading as freedom fighters. What NATO has done is to prolong a conflict and carnage that should have ended weeks back.

Why would anyone still listen to Elliott Abrams after his record of not only lying, but being wrong in what he lied about. And convicted for at least some of his lies.

It is a sad commentary that he can even get a job in Washington. How do guys like that keep bubbling up?

More than a month after the first bombs fell on Muammar al-Qaddafi's forces, the assumptions that led the United States into the war have mostly been proven wrong -- and a strategy to end it is still nowhere in sight. yes, of course it was a mistake. By almost any measure, it was a mistake. It all sounds good on paper, helping bold rebels fight a tyrannical dictator, but in reality. "Don't bet on it. When the United States and its allies went to war in Libya five and a half weeks ago, it wasn't supposed to be much of a war at all. U. S. President Barack Obama's decision to intervene was based on the assumption that nearby states more directly impacted by the state of affairs in Libya, such as Britain and France, would lead the charge jump higher. The United States, according to Obama, would lead with "days, not weeks" of military action, thus "shaping the conditions for the international community to act together. " Many in Washington, though aware that the United States has unique capabilities essential to early stages of no-fly zone implementation, assumed it would be easy to pass the buck. As vocal intervention proponent Sen. Lindsay Graham would later concede, "When we call[ed] for a no-fly zone, we didn't mean our planes. "" Everyone knows that war is not the solution and it never ends..

Speaking in Tripoli, Libyan Prime Minister Baghdadi Ali Mahmoudi reiterated his government’s desire for a cease fire monitored by international peacekeepers. The government, Mahmoudi said, would be willing to talk with rebel representatives as part of a subsequent program of national reconciliation. The projected talks could result in a new constitution and more democratic form of government, officials here vowed. grow taller Like the banks, the argument is that the initial investment will reap rewards. But what rewards will be realised? At the moment the weather in Libya is looking distinctly like drizzle. A dissarrayed rebel force, a Gadaffi regime and somewhere in the middle some crude oil exports.