The answer is obviously yes. Just look at our deficits, the management of the Fed, and the persecution of Christians in countries we prop up with our military.

Mark, it's very difficult to go in with military force and make things better, and it takes ages. It's actually pretty easy to go in with a military force and make things worse. So long as we make things worse for the right people, it can be worth the effort.

That makes this a different cupcake.

I find myself on opposite sides of at least 3 of the 4 writers at NRO I most respect: Krikorian, Derbyshire, and McCarthy. I'm not yet sure of where Stuttaford stands, and I have little admiration for the neocons at NRO.

I think it's important not simply to learn "a lesson" from history, but to learn and apply the right lesson.

For example, much of the justification for the Iraq War was that we would bring freedom and democracy to a land that hadn't known much of either, just like we did to Japan and Germany after WW2. The problem with applying that lesson was that it didn't account for the reason we had both the will and the moral authority to soundly defeat both countries and to force changes in their society: they were ravaging the world, and we had the right to stop them with any necessary force.

So here we have a case of an active insurrection against a man whose support of terrorism was responsible for 270 deaths at Lockerbie alone, and we're questioning whether we should support the effort to remove him? Seriously? At a relatively minor cost we have the chance to send a message to thugs who support terrorism, and, since the insurrection was already in progress, we can wash our hands of what comes after.

We are understandably tired after nearly a decade of two difficult, costly wars whose purpose and outcome remains somewhat vague. I have no illusions about what the rebels stand for, or how they might govern after they win, but I know that Khaddafi has earned such a fate.

>"At a relatively minor cost we have the chance to send a message to thugs who support terrorism, and, since the insurrection was already in progress, we can wash our hands of what comes after."

You do understand that the insurrectionists are themselves terrorist thugs who would be happy to blow up the Statute of Liberty, right?

What an absolute asinine post by Mr. Krikorian. No one argued that Iraq would be in and out. In fact, the Bush admin said over and over that this would be a long battle, one that could be generational. History will show that our invasion and creation of an Iraqi democratic Republic was beyond sucessful and historically quick. So sucessful, in fact, that ALL of the Middle East is coming apart at the seams as the people on the street are overturning their tyranical systems for democratic ones, just as Bush predicted would happen.

Do you know what it takes for the good people of Libya, Syria or Iran to protest - do you know what it means? It means they now face a good chance of being put to death by their vile, anti-American gov’ts. Yet there are thousands of people risking their lives and limbs for liberty. And yet Mark thinks that Quaddafi is a better more safer choice for American national security? Mark would rather have no influence with the rebels? How mindbogglingly stupid!

** "You do understand that the insurrectionists are themselves terrorist thugs who would be happy to blow up the Statute of Liberty, right?" **

Flenser, you're another NRO regular I respect and usually agree with.

If the CIA has data that these men are terrorists then that would matter. I'm assuming they don't. If they do turn into terrorists then we bomb them to the hereafter. Even the most evil coup leaders generally only want to control a country's wealth for themselves. Let them do so, so long as they leave the US and our allies alone. Eventually these thugs will get the message that if they want to remain in power they won't support terrorism against the West.

"At a relatively minor cost we have the chance to send a message to thugs..."

Enough with the "messages" already. We don't have a clue what kind of message our action - or inaction - will send (and more importantly - will be received as) by assorted thugs around the world.

Typical National Review palecon antisemitic isolationist drivel. You LaRouchites are such unpatriotic conservatives.

Oh no, wait. That was 2005. Looks like things have changed.

Not that I'm not glad to see signs of sanity among NR's stable of writers (although unfortunately the editorial board seems to ber permanently trapped in 2002 monster quest mode), but one problem with switches like this is that they bolster the leftist case that there's no conservative principle involved; Republicans just get all gung-ho behind George W's excellent adventures but then suddenly discover all sorts of rationales to mind our own business once the White House turns blue.

This is a promising sign of hope and change toward responsibility on the self-appointed center right - if it sticks. I just hope that once President Pawlenty takes office, NR doesn't suddenly discover a thousand new reasons we have to invade Indonesia, Syria, Yemen, and Kazakhstan.

Great post Mark! Exactly how I feel about it.

Liberalism has turned every one of our recent military actions into long-term, open-ended dangerous commitments. The Germany/Japan analogy only works if we utterly and completely defeat the enemy, occupy the country (with NO apologies), and install the government of our choosing.

When it comes to radical Islam we have not done that. The amount of force we would have to apply, and the number of nations we would have to invade and conquer is beyond the mental capacity of modern "who are we to judge", "but, but, but civilian casualties" liberalism. Short of an Arab armed invasion of Western Europe, that isn't going to happen. Iraq was lost until Bush did the Conservative thing: Play to Win. As soon as he left, Play to Tie Liberals have let things go to pot.

If we are not prepared to go all-in, fight to win, take over the country, install a constitutional, non-Sharia, secular government, and stay there until it takes full root, then we have no business putting American lives at risk. We just signed on to a feckless UN resolution (is there any other kind?). If it is right to do, and it is in American interests, then we do not need the UN's blessing. But if you are a weak American President, the UN gives you a momma's skirt to hide behind.