Attacks on other governments made without Congressional sanction of any kind, indeed without formal consultation with Congress, are not great ideas just because they occasionally work out well for someone else. I understand how differently this matter looks to the pundit class.

Additionally, and from the standpoint of American interests in the region, the country that matters here is Egypt. In its zeal to respond to crises, further inspiring narratives and celebrate triumphs of the human spirit, the Obama administration made a decision to treat the Egyptian revolution as a mission accomplished situation last spring. It focused instead on Libya, a country less than 1/12 Egypt's size. In the meantime the Egyptian armed forces have moved in what seems to be a very determined manner to maintain a strong grip on their country's government and politics, a development that neither upholds American values nor ensures American interests.

Americans are not particularly good at recognizing the opportunity costs of commitment to the crisis of the moment. Qadhafi was, in a sense, an opportunity cost of Americans' long preoccupation with Southeast Asia in the late 1960s. I do not begrudge the Libyan people their liberation from his rule, but do wonder what opportunity costs the Obama administration has placed on our bill by choosing to make Qadhafi's fall its top priority in the Middle East for the last several months.

I generally agree with your listing of winners and losers. However, I'll disagree with the listing of Realists mostly because the situation remains unfinished. The capture of Tripoli, even the arrest or execution of Qaddafi, is not the final data point of the US or NATO involvement in Libya. I went into this in detail on Prof. Walt's blog post (he beat you to the punch), but my concerns going forward are that Western powers are going to have serious problems with lesson-learning and misperception that will hurt any of the positive value or "winners" that arose from the US' approach to Libya:

[Just going to cut and paste my three paragraphs, I hope you are not offended. Busy day at work.]

1) Who are the rebels? - The best any of us can really say with any confidence is that they aren't Qaddafi. We don't know what kind of government they'll want, what kind the people of Libya will want, and what that will look like to our Western populations and governments. It could be a couple of things: a newer, shinier, more intelligent and marginally liberalized authoritarian regime, it could be a democracy fundamentally founded in the ideas and beliefs of Islam (for better or worse), or it could be exactly what Americans and other westerners expect it to be. My belief is that the result will be one of the first two rather than the last one. There's no reason to believe that the rebels desire the very same institutions and philosophies of government that we seem to be projecting onto them. That seems familiar somehow...

2) What lessons does the foreign policy establishment draw? - Again, my belief is that there's certain narrow value to the United States that comes from ousting Qaddafi that comes in the form of a new friendlier economic partner that's tremendously oil-rich. However, will the US or other Great Powers in NATO be taught the lesson that what was done in Libya should be done everywhere? Even if the development of statecraft is a wild success in Libya, will that blind actors to the ability to discern the value of certain interventions over others?

I don't know the answer to these questions, but considering how much "Democratization" as a concept gets Western leaders salivating (and Democratic Peace Theory's adoration in circles in Washington), I'm skeptical that the US will be able to take the middle road and not bolster human intervention and state building as necessary central components of foreign policy.

Congratulations to the Libyan people for ending this 41 year old oppressive, dictatorial regime. The world's thoughts and prayers are with them and we hope that from the ashes of this conflict have the seeds of future growth and prosperity been sewn. It has been a long struggle but it is nice to see that the bloodshed should be ending very soon. Hopefully the Libyan people can mobilize a new legitimate government quickly without too much corruption and violence.

Check out http://www.thinkonthat.com/archives/3929 for a write up and description of the entire conflict and it's timeline. I found it useful to get a good overview of the events leading up to the end of this regime. Cheers!

I think the Kosovo analogy is a good one...so far. Remember, though, the triumphalism when the US took Baghdad; the devil we knew may be preferable to the devil we don't know...

I guess the losers in Iraq were the Despots, not the civilians who say there were better off under Saddam.

I guess the losers in Afghanistan are the Despots, not the civilians slaughtered by the U.S.

I guess the losers in Pakistan are the Despots, not the innocent civilians being killed by U.S. drones every single day.

I guess when you are an ally of the U.S. you are allowed to commit crimes against humanity ad infinitum --> China, Egypt, Saudia Arabia the list goes on.

This publication is a sorry excuse for journalism.

Sure, I'll bite.

1. Just because something was successful doesn't mean it was worth the cost. True, the cost-benefit looks vastly better for Libya than Iraq, but it's not nothing either -- billions of dollars, some diplomatic capital, etc. If you're allowing realists to answer on their own terms, then whether the Libyan people live under Qadaffi or not isn't much of a benefit.

2. Libya is one of the easier cases for humanitarian intervention -- a lightly populated oil rich country, with the whole population on a seacoast and a stone's throw from NATO bases, neighbors who were on our side, and a tired old dictator with neither broad popular support nor "we're all in this together" links to specific tribes or groups, who never exactly had a reputation for competence, defended mostly by mercenaries. Even this was a bit messy. Tell me what the lessons are for getting rid of Assad....?

3. If the long-term implication is to convince the dictators of the world that striking bargains to give up pursuit of WMD/terrorism/whatever in exchange for being brought back in from the cold and presumably off the regime change list, then that is indeed a significant entry in the "cost" column.

4. Who said this is over? ME/NA experts and military officers from other countries in the region who I've talked to sure don't see it as a given that things go cleanly and smoothly from here. I'm not sure if you posted it or not, but from your Iraq War opinions I suspect your take in April of 2003 was also "Whadda you say now, you hand-wringing realists?". If we go by that track record, Dan, I wouldn't be quick to dismiss what Mearsheimer, Posen, and Walt have to say this time.

I think Germany should be in the list of losers. The Merkel gov't abstained from the vote on the UN resolution on the intervention in Libya. The success of NATO's operation makes the German government's decision look shortsighted, timid and violating solidarity toward's the NATO allies. It also won't have helped it's standing with the Libyan people or the TNC.

That whole bit bashing those who didn't support intervention, and claiming victory for idealism (?) long before the flag of victory should be flown; was a little pretentious. For a professor, you seem short-sighted. Also try to keep in mind that most realists were not arguing against the use of limited air-power and CIA assets...we were arguing against the use of ground forces, and or a massive engagement. Neither happened, BECAUSE the realists prevented it from happening (see Bob Gates). So while I appreciate your need for a victory lap, it is both too early, and too incomplete a moment to take one.

I think the ICC should be included in the list of winners. This is because its legitimacy/reputation will be bolstered- when Quaddafi's sons will be handed in to the Hague to face the consequences of their acts.

Just to pile on top of what other people have already said, there's still a chance that the end of Gaddafi rule will give way not to democracy and solid institution-building but years of factional strife, violence, economic crisis and, consequently, more intervention at ever higher ground presence and cost.

Nice post about Khadafi/Gaddafi/etc. But I am surprised that you did not include Sarkozy in your list. He made a gamble –make the French public forget his "oops" when it came to Tunisia and Egypt and improve his statesman stature in the view of the upcoming presidential election (Spring 2012). I am ready to bet that his PR will be all out, triumphalist, over the next few days…

"In 2012, the only issue any voter cares about is the economy.". True enough today, but remember in 2007 foreign policy was a big issue, not the economy.

To quote Rummy in a different context: "stuff happens". And it can change the relevance of having some foreign policy successes.

Anyone who has to figure out what is the correct-at-the-moment spelling of "Kadafy"...

All this for Obama?

He is still in the middle of his third war. Remember when Bush celebrated himself after the initial Afghan and Iraqi victories? Was that the same badass military statecraft?