Libya: 'Here's why I was wrong'

That's the article
I'd like to read
by everyone who
predicted
a stalemate or quagmire
in which
the United
States eventually would
have to insert
ground troops.
(For those of you too hurried to click through to all them links, I am calling
out the following members of the diverse quagmire/stalemate coalition: Dov
Zakheim, Andrew Sullivan, Alexander Cockburn, Anne Applebaum, Richard
Norton-Taylor, Melanie Clarke, the German government, the editorial page of the
Wall Street Journal, the Xinhua news service, and the Beirut Daily
Star.)

Who wants to go
first?

Meanwhile, from
Fareed Zakaria, here is one of
the best summaries I have seen of the meaning of the Libyan war:

The Libyan
intervention offers a new model for the West. It was a humanitarian mission with
strategic interests as well -- support for the Arab Spring and the new
aspirations of the people of the Middle East. It was also a new model in that
it involved an America that insisted on legitimacy and burden sharing, that
allowed the locals to own their revolution. That means, however, that it is in
the hands of the Libyans. They can avoid the mistakes of Iraq, which makes the
challenge before them even more daunting. But it is a challenge they have
eagerly sought and one for which they will find help from friends around the
world.