"There will be unforeseeable consequences of taking action, but better take action than risk the consequences of inaction," - David Cameron, sounding eerily like Tony Blair before Iraq.

Let me acknowledge that my support for the disaster in Iraq has made me much more jittery when I hear the same kind of rhetoric I once engaged in rise through the current clamor. I may be over-reading from history and not seeing this de novo. This time it may be different.

We have ruled out ground troops and allegedly restricted US involvement to "days, not weeks." The coalition is definitely one of the willing and the US only really pushed for this in the last week.

I just hope that Cameron and Sarkozy continue in a few months' time to be as adamant on this as they are now, and that they will tax their own citizens to pay for this - for as long as it takes to win a civil war in a distant land. And that, it seems to me, is what this logically implies. Are Cameron and Sarkozy really going to be content to leave Qaddafi in power in a possible stalemate and a divided Libya? And if the part that the West controls has the oil, I hope they can demonstrate that this was not the core objective - to the satisfaction of Arab public opinion. But one suspects they haven't really thought about that yet - or dismissed it in the desire to prevent the imminent slaughter of innocents.

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