This, from Politico, is a nice headline summation of everything wrong with American political commentary:
The wisdom of intervention in Libya notwithstanding, this is just a completely inappropriate way to describe the use of military force. Yes, in some narrow, superficial sense, a United Nations no-fly zone -- enforced by American bombs -- is a "win" for Secretary Clinton. In the real world, however, American bombs are likely to lead to American commitments, and American commitments could easily lead to another drawn-out conflict in the Middle East. And indeed, even if we manage to accomplish this without another occupation, we risk the chance of arming another Taliban and continuing the pattern of ill-thought interventions, followed by catastrophic blowback.
Of course, I am just a skeptical young peacenik. It's entirely possible that the interventionists -- with their long history of success -- have the right idea. But I doubt it.
