Peter Feaver is against the idea, now being touted by - yes! - Paul Wolfowitz, who also supports "provision of arms to the provisional authorities":

The Obama administration needs to do more, but I would not go as far as some who advocate having U.S. forces impose a no-fly zone. I share their outrage at the way Gaddafi had his Air Force strafe defenseless citizens, but involving the U.S. military in this way would constitute a major escalation, and it would be hard to walk back if the situation further unraveled. What if Gaddafi shifted to tanks? Would we then be obligated to have our planes destroy the tanks? And without U.N. authorization, the United States would be entirely on its own. Not even our European allies, who otherwise would join in condemning the Gaddafi regime, would approve of U.S. military action without U.N. authorization. 

Wolfowitz, to be fair, favors this under UN auspices - and warns of the "terrible reputation the United States is acquiring, by its inaction, among the Libyan people and throughout the region. It will stay with us for a long time." Yes, the man who worked in the administration that authorized torture, and backed intervention in Iraq on false grounds, is now worried about the US's reputation for what it doesn't do, rather than what it does.

One merely wonders where the chutzpah comes from; and when it will ever wane.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.