And I admit I may be being a bit unfair to you.  But you seem trying to give the lion's share of the credit to the administration who "took a restrained role".  Congratulating the administration seems to take chest-thumping a little too far.  It reminds me a little too much of the kid who takes credit for another kid's work.

Some Libyans who wanted to attack other Libyans did so.

Similarly, before and after the 2003 invasion some Iraqis asked for and expressed thanks for the US invasion of Iraq.

By some counts more than a million Iraqis died as a direct result of that "humanitarian intervention", on top of the more than a million who died as a result of the sanctions before the invasion.

Lately there has been much written about the US/NATO attacks on Libya, with much `cheering' over Obama looking as `strong' as crazy republicans.

The one thing that most overlook, or few seem to want to face, is what the US Governments intentions really are re Libya.

Many of the comments posted on various blogs "supporting" the so-called "humanitarian intervention" try to use the fact that some Libyans "asked" for the intervention, and are "happy" that the US obliged. But there is rarely any inquiry into exactly who it is in Libya that "asked" for it, and there is much more to the story that is usually discussed.

The US Government has been "intervening" in Libya for decades.

The Secret War Against Libya
Richard Keeble

US official records indicate that funding for the Chad-based secret war against Libya also came from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco, Israel and Iraq. The Saudis, for instance, donated $7m to an opposition group, the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (also backed by French intelligence and the CIA). But a plan to assassinate Gadafi and take over the government on 8 May 1984 was crushed. In the following year, the US asked Egypt to invade Libya and overthrow Gadafi but President Mubarak refused. By the end of 1985, the Washington Post had exposed the plan after congressional leaders opposing it wrote in protest to President Reagan.
[snip]
Following the April 1986 attack, reports of US military action against Libya disappeared from the media. But away from the media glare, the CIA launched by far its most extensive effort yet to spark an anti-Gadafi coup. A secret army was recruited from among the many Libyans captured in border battles with Chad during the 1980s. And, as concern grew in MI6 over Gadafi's alleged plans to develop chemical weapons, Britain funded various opposition groups in Libya including the London-based Libyan National Movement.

Who are the Libyan Freedom Fighters and Their Patrons?
Peter Dale Scott

"Americans, Britons and the French are finding themselves as comrades in arms with the rebel Islamic Fighting Group, the most radical element in the Al Qaeda network [to bring down Gaddhafi]. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted the risks of the unholy alliance in a congressional hearing, saying that the Libyan opposition is probably more anti-American than Muammar Gaddhafi. A decade ago, this very same delusion of a Western-Islamist partnership in Kosovo, Bosnia and Chechnya ended abruptly in the 9/11 attacks."

Do people really think that some Libyans being happy that the US is bombing some other Libyans somehow invalidates a quarter century or more of history? Or that the US Governments intentions intervening in Libya since it now has a saleable excuse to do so that the America public will "buy" are now magically somehow more "humanitarian" than their intentions have ever been in any other "intervention"?

"we don't intervene based on precedent or based on a certain set of consistency guidelines but rather so that we can advance our interests [like energy security]."
- Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough

We shall see how happy most Libyans are a few years from now. Perhaps they'll be as happy as Bahrainis and Iraqis and Afghanis are now?

You invade Bahrain. We take out Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. This, in short, is the essence of a deal struck between the Barack Obama administration and the House of Saud. Two diplomatic sources at the United Nations independently confirmed that Washington, via Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, gave the go-ahead for Saudi Arabia to invade Bahrain and crush the pro-democracy movement in their neighbor in exchange for a "yes" vote by the Arab League for a no-fly zone over Libya - the main rationale that led to United Nations Security Council resolution 1973.

The revelation came from two different diplomats, a European and a member of the BRIC group, and was made separately to a US scholar and Asia Times Online. According to diplomatic protocol, their names cannot be disclosed. One of the diplomats said, "This is the reason why we could not support resolution 1973. We were arguing that Libya, Bahrain and Yemen were similar cases, and calling for a fact-finding mission. We maintain our official position that the resolution is not clear, and may be interpreted in a belligerent manner."

As Asia Times Online has reported, a full Arab League endorsement of a no-fly zone is a myth. Of the 22 full members, only 11 were present at the voting. Six of them were Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members, the US-supported club of Gulf kingdoms/sheikhdoms, of which Saudi Arabia is the top dog. Syria and Algeria were against it. Saudi Arabia only had to "seduce" three other members to get the vote.

Translation: only nine out of 22 members of the Arab League voted for the no-fly zone. The vote was essentially a House of Saud-led operation, with Arab League secretary general Amr Moussa keen to polish his CV with Washington with an eye to become the next Egyptian President.

Thus, in the beginning, there was the great 2011 Arab revolt. Then, inexorably, came the US-Saudi counter-revolution.

Both the powerfully seductive myth of American Exceptionalism and the loudly proclaimed goal of "humanitarian intervention" in Libya's civil war appear to be driving the narrative in US media and from the US Government.

The history of US involvement and war in Vietnam and in the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions and occupations, historically illustrate quite clearly the level of "concern" the US Government has for civilian populations, and US domestic policies the past few years at least illustrate the same level of "concern" re the American people.

And thanks for adding to the things Gaddafi did for his people, things our 'civilized' leaders are incapable of even contemplating for their people.

I wish you owned some major media conglomerate, because you always find... not sure what the word is, but you dig for answers, and put the pieces together in a way that makes sense with what I observe.

And now that I think about it, you do what reporters should do, and yet it's commendable because that profession is a shell of what it once was.  Nothing correlates anymore, they say this, for example OSW, but it doesn't reconcile with facts I know or good old common sense.

Again, I generally support Obama but don't support every action he takes and have been vocal about my disagreement with both his Iraq and Afghanistan timelines.  

The point is that it is possible for countries to liberate themselves and that we can provide support in a secondary role.

And let's keep it real in terms of troops levels. We have like 16 people in Libya from what I can tell.

16 people.

And they aren't there for combat, they are there for training assistance.  There are probably more US military personnel on my street than have been assigned to Libya.

If committing less than 50 troops to Libya over the next year to assist the rebels is the cost of getting Gaddafi, I am fine with that.

It is possible a few Special Forces or Delta are there but apparently not many.

Our support of the NATO sorties will end because there are few if any sorties left to do.

That doesn't mean going to war at the drop of a dime.  It does mean, I think, that in a situation where we have the approval of the UN, the regional leaders surrounding the area, the forces seeking freedom and the international community, that an intervention without troop commitment or risk of loss of life should be considered.

That's in essence what we had here and the level of involvement was exactly the level required. No American solider has died or been injured.  A tyrant and killer (and terrorist who orchestrated a plane bombing) is dead and his people are free to begin choosing their own path.

I understand your concerns about a slippery slope and unintended consequences, but on the facts, our role in Libya is one that I stand firmly behind and one which we will ultimately look at with pride IMHO.