From David Wood, HuffPost:

But according to an analysis by Jamsheed K. Choksy, a Middle East expert at Indiana University, there are perils ahead whether Gaddafi is able to cling to power or not.

“Several of Qadhafi's old cronies are lining up with the populist uprising hoping to at least save their hides and at most to profit politically and financially," Choksy cautions in an essay in Small Wars Journal.

Toppling Gaddafi is only a first step toward the opposition’s aspirations of freedom and representative government. Whether the rebels take power in all of Libya or merely the eastern half, they will have to manage tricky political maneuvering and meet the public’s appetite for speedy economic and political reform -- perhaps struggling with opposition within their own ranks.

“If the rebels gain control of Libya, they will then have to grapple with those individuals within the interim council linked to 42 years of repression," Choksy writes. Ultimately, he cautions, “the rebellion may not bring appropriate change but could represent the political survival of an old guard linked to the Middle East’s 'mad dog' or even the rise of Islamism."

Okay, figured it was from a period before we were at war with Eurasia/East Asia/some other Asia.

Still, he's no Al Hrabosky. 

Just sayin'. The Mad Hungarian - you can't touch that. 

Many people make the hypocrisy argument against our intervention. I certainly agree that it is a demonstration of hypocrisy when the same reason could be applied in so many other places around the world.  I don't buy the humanitarian intervention story as being the real reason for our action but just an excuse. Presumably, then, there is a real reason for switching sides and overtly intervening. That is the story we should be told but maybe Strauss was right, maybe we just cannot handle the truth so we must be told the "Noble Lie". .
 Another way that Obama demonstrates hypocrisy involving war decisions is demonstrated  [I first miss-typed typed "deemon strated] when Bradley Manning sees evidence of severe human rights violations resulting in the death of innocents as well as other war crimes and the lies that cover those actions by us and he bravely intervenes, without causing death, in an attempt to stop them.
  Bradley Manning gets solitary confinement and is charged with a capital offense. Maybe Obama will show his compassion and reduce Manning's death penalty to 50 or 60 years.

First, the explication of what North Star meant last night is amazing and it's kind of embarassing that more people didn't make that connection.  It's amazing to have a president who can so etxture a speech to the nation.  At least, while developing the Google News search I just linked to, I came across Sarah Palin's take on the "North Star" which was that it's on the Alaska state flag.  So maybe Thomas Ricks is writing a bit above the national discourse.

As for Lynch, I think he's answering some arguments that people aren't making.  Of course the U.S. isn't invading Libya "to grab its oil."  That's an unfair way to characterize Obama's critics.  Does oil have anything to do with this?  Well, yes.  Libya is a major oil producer and Gadhafi's government is involved in joint ventures with major multinationals from the U.S. and the E.U.  There's no way that Libya's resources and role in world trade haven't garnered this situation more attention than other similar situations in and around Africa.

But, as Lynch says, that doesn't necessarily matter because Libya became a credibility test for America in the minds of many who live in the region.  These people, for whatever reasons, decided to judge the U.S. by its actions here and not in Bahrain or the Ivory Coast or Darfur or Myanmar.  In a way you can say "but that shouldn't be so," all you want and you can list all of the reasons you want why it shouldn't be so, but it's so.  Which still really irks me because if public opinion is going to guide our foreign policy, I'd prefer a public opinion far more local than "the Arab public sphere."

Lynch assures us that "They don't want another Iraq, as Obama made clear.... even if it is not obvious that they can avoid one."  I believe that.  But what if most Americans aren't willing to take that risk?  Will Obama draw a line that says "this far and no farther," even if the coalition falls short of its goals?

Lynch also says, "The administration hasn't done a great job communicating its position, particularly on the question of whether or not Qaddafi's departure is the goal (I personally think it has to be)."  If Lynch is right and that's the goal (because it has to be) than did Obama lie to the public outright?  Did he lie because the public would not support the truth?  Or is Lynch just wrong?

Of course both Ricks and Lynch, like most pro-intervention foreign policy thinkers, have written about this as if there was an infinite supply of money to support this operation.  That's technically true, but if they believe it, they should also support my idea of having the Federal Reserve just print up the cash to pay off everybody's credit card and student loan bills.

I would argue that what matters is not its binding/non-binding status per se, but that on one hand, it disproves the notion that Congress hadn't voiced support for the action, but on the other hand fell short of a declaration of war.

Prashad  said : Maybe yes,maybe no.Perhaps the occupiers  would have behaved.

It's interesting, I get the sense from reading the more "breaking" news that we may be about to see some proof of that one way or another.

Here's rebels in Misrata telling AFP that they fear the coalition won't hit tanks already in Misrata, because of the possibility of civilian casualties, and that the Gaddafi tanks are indiscriminately shelling inside the city. Here's a CNN "witness" report of "carnage" in Misrata  from this morning and that the coalition is holding back from striking tanks within the city:

Libyan government tanks were shelling civilian areas in Misrata Tuesday and government forces were using heavy artillery as well, bringing "absolute and utter carnage" to the city, a witness told CNN. Government forces were also evicting thousands of residents and looting their homes, according to the source with the Libyan opposition. Rebels were using schools and mosques to accommodate the evicted, he said. Things are getting so much worse" in the city, he said.

Coalition planes circled overhead but did not strike the tanks, he said. In an interview with CNN, he pleaded for coalition forces to take action and stop the government troops.

On CNN TV just a while ago, they showed a video purported to be of tanks moving in Misrata.

Here's what the coalition is proud to admit they are doing as regards Misrata: hitting an ammo dump outside Misrata and firing on Gaddafi ships on the water near Misrata.

Now the Misrata rebel reports to media might be an organized propaganda campaign to try to press the coalition to do more, but I don't see any agenda possible other than that, as It would be better for them for morale purposes to say things are going swimmingly rather than expressing fears.

Seems like Gaddafi plans to continue to fight back in civilian areas, civilians included, precisely because he sess the coalition won't go there and that whatever heavy armor he already has within populated areas is safe? Some Tripoli reports seem to suggest the same problem is going to rear its head there.