by Patrick Appel
Jonathan Chait counters Matt Welch:
This is a persuasive argument if you oppose all military interventions. If you don't, it basically boils down to the proposition that a successful military operation is bad because it will lead to unsuccessful military operations.
But the scale of military successes and failures matter. A "win" in Libya, where the US has few interests, doesn't cancel out the enormous failures of Iraq. And if the Libyan War, by further empowering the executive branch, leads America to another Iraq-scale disaster then "the success curse" will be validated. Wilkinson is less dismissive of Welch. Ackerman reminds us that "the war isn't over yet":
Leave aside the really relevant question of a potential revanchist insurgency. The rebels don't have Saif Gadhafi, they don't have Moammar Gadhafi, and they haven't demonstrated they can hold Tripoli. How can we draw lessons from an unconcluded war?
The Dish 