And Libya goes on...

[Dayuhan]

Would it have mattered?

Certainly to the US it would have mattered. We'd have been stuck out front where we don't want to be.

And the capability of the US + the UK and France suddenly sum to "enough?" More to the point, if the interests at stake do not justify the single most capable member of the Coalition exerting leadership, then precisely what reason is there for that member to even participate?

There's enough reason to participate, not enough reason to lead. Participation is an intermediate step between "dominate" and "do nothing". Considering the extent of our commitments elsewhere, I'm not sure the capacity we can actually deploy in the Mediterranean is "single most capable". We're positioned pretty much where we needed to be, seems to me.

Same question as above. If we do not have any interest in the end state, why intervene in the first place?

We have no ability to dictate the end state with an acceptable level of involvement, but we saw sufficient reason to be engaged in the limited objective of preventing a total victory by Gadhafi. Subsequent objectives may or may not be adopted upon subsequent assessments. How is that unreasonable?

You've been very clear on what the White House does not count amongst its "limited objectives," but not so much on what those objectives actually are. At some point, you're going to have to say "Obama committed force to achieve X." That "X," as far as the White House is saying, is at the very least to halt Qaddafi's offensive against the rebels. If you're arguing that either the UK and France have sufficient capacity to achieve such an end state or that Americans have no interest one way or the other, then why are Americans intervening at all? If not, then why did the US wait to act?

That's been made sufficiently clear by many, and I see no need to repeat. No need to make mountains out of mole-hills.

No one. You articulated a principle that foregoing planning was better than accepting the risk that planning may fail.

I articulated no such principle, though you may have interpreted it as such. There's no sense in imposing a long-term plan on a limited involvement that is specifically intended to be short term, it only restricts the flexibility that is the entire point of limited engagement.

If it ain't our mission, then once again...why bother?

Because at times we may see fit to assist in operations that are primarily someone else's responsibility, just as at times we seek the participation of others in missions that are primarily ours. Doesn't have to be all or nothing, control or avoid.