A saner case for intervention

Of all of the arguments for American intervention in Libya, Fareed Zakaria makes the most rational case. Although he concedes Libya poses no direct threat to us, the potential gains we'd make geo-politically in the region (siding with the "Arab awakening") justify intervention. If Gaddafi is allowed to win, Zakaria argues, it would "send a disastrous signal to the other rulers of the region — in Syria, Algeria, Iran — that Mubarak made a mistake and that the way to stay in office is to engage in mass slaughter, scare the U.S. away and wait out the sanctions and isolation." That sounds right to me. It would also legitimize Al Qaeda's warnings about Western duplicity. To avoid this outcome, Zakaria argues that we must militarily shift the balance of power away from Gaddafi and toward the rebels. His proposal: Give "arms, food, logistical help, intelligence and other such tools to the Libyan opposition would boost its strength and give it staying power." The question is whether this is enough to turn the tide against Gaddafi. On that point, I'm skeptical. It seems to me that if we intervene, then nothing less than victory will be acceptable. And that will require a more aggressive military posture.