Andrew McCarthy, as usual, speaks the truth on Libya, reminding us that the rebels have behaved lawlessly and viciously and, more important, are likely less predictable and manageable than Kaddafi:
To borrow Mr. Wallace’s phrase, I am not “suggesting that we would be better off with the Qaddafi dictatorship still in effect.” I am saying it outright. If the choice is between an emerging Islamist regime and a Qaddafi dictatorship that cooperates with the United States against Islamists, then I’ll take Qaddafi. If the choice is between tolerating the Qaddafi dictatorship and disgracing ourselves by lying about the reason for initiating a war and by turning a blind eye to the atrocities of our new Islamist friends — even as we pontificate about the responsibility to protect civilians — then give me the Qaddafi dictatorship every time.
I should add that I find it really funny how short our collective memories are. Since when is it any great accomplishment to support rebels that murder their leader? When was the last time you heard the American left cheering the US role in the fall of Manuel Noriega or Allende or Saddam Hussein for that matter? And, like the fall of Baghdad, this entire recent episode has an air of premature triumphalism, as if we have any idea what will happen next or whether it will be good for America. Anyone can score a touchdown; but real foreign policy is very complicated. Winning the game is difficult, as evidenced by events in Afghanistan and Iraq. Indeed, consider the recent jubilation over the end of Hosnei Mubarak. Now what do we have? An emerging junta.