The second lesson to draw is that one fiasco does not a norm make. Military intervention is sometimes indispensible, and in everyone’s interests. Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Ivory Coast, Libya and Mali all qualify as successful international military interventions that saved countless lives. Syria is the most pressing current case for military intercession, despite the fear of making things worse – the diplomatic equivalent of the Hippocratic principle – and despite sheer intervention fatigue.
Heed the lessons of Iraq
I would say the intervention in Libya is an unqualified disaster. After the expenditure of who knows how many weapons and millions of dollars, Libya is essentially in anarchy. None of this troubles NATO apparently,who foisted the bent and twisted UN Security Council Resolution 1973 on Libya as a military sandbox in which anybody could do anything they wanted, blow up anything they wanted, in the name of humanitarian intervention. After it was all over and Gadaffi (spelling optional) had been violently raped on TV before being murdered, Libya was declared a success, despite the loss of untold weapons, and the subsequent ignition of war in Mali, that Mr. Heinbecker also counts as a "success."
I'm not sure what Mr. Heinbecker has been smoking,but I think it's the same stuff Robert Fowler inhaled.
The fact is that UN Security Council Resolution 1970 was passed unanimously and referred war crimes in Libya to the International Criminal Court, which was an absolutely astounding advance in international law until Susan Rice and her fellow idiots felt it necessary to display their hallucinogenic peacock feathers, all of which contributed to the humanitarian disaster in Syria that the US and EU think can be solved by military intervention, the stupidity of which has been demonstrated in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
I guess Mr. Heinbecker and Mr. Fowler are cut from the same cloth, delusional R2P.