The Kinetic Military Action in The Land of No Good Guys.
I've been a tad indifferent about what it is we're doing in Libya ... and perhaps that is because I simply don't know what it is we're trying to accomplish. I've never had any love for Khadaffi, and I never bought the "changed man" theory. The Lockerbie bombing has a lot to do with this. Yeah, I'd like to see him not there (or anywhere) anymore.
But of course, there's the whole "what moves in to fill the vacuum" question -- which is the big hole in the well-meaning neo-conservative doctrine (and who knew Obama was a "neo-con", eh?) It just doesn't work in a population that's not ready for it ("it" being anything like a Jeffersonian Democracy). Imperialism, would in fact, be better if you're going to do anything at all (militarily) to advance the cause. Which I am specifically not endorsing here. Just putting weights on the options.
So leave it to Mark Steyn to finally put it in terms that make some sense. I've been saying over the past five years or so that I could be an isolationist once we tie up our overseas obligations. I'd be all for systematically drawing down all over the world ... and yeah, I mean Germany and the rest of Europe. Beef up our defenses here, get serious about killing enemies when they attack, and pre-emptively strike if they threaten to attack. I could get behind that if we had the right attitude about it.