Greg Scoblete notices that "none of [the calls for intervention in Libya] hinge on America's national security interests":

Notice that Senator Kerry's case hinges exclusively on how the U.S. looks or is perceived. He's even scornful of public "reticence" - as if it were a bad thing! There is no indication, or argument, that the lives of Americans or core interests are in danger. 

Marc Lynch's new post, which the Dish linked to yesterday, makes a more convincing case for doing something to topple Qaddafi - although Lynch now has second thoughts about a no-fly zone:

The bloody stalemate in Libya has drained away the carnival atmosphere from the Arab upheavals -- something which may not be displeasing to many of the other Arab leaders, despite their distaste for Qaddafi.   Arabs who yearn to be part of the Tahrir Square celebrations may be less excited to be part of a brutal, grinding struggle against entrenched security forces -- a lesson which I suspect that Arab leaders are quietly encouraging.  But they may have miscalculated.   If force fails here, it may be seen to fail everywhere ... which is one more reason to make sure that it does in fact fail. 

According to Rasmussen, the vast majority of Americans are against intervention.

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