A while back, liberal blogger Kevin Drum swallowed hard and decided to defer to Barack Obama's judgment in launching the latter's Libyan military adventure:
If it had been my call, I wouldn't have gone into Libya. But the reason I voted for Obama in 2008 is because I trust his judgment. And not in any merely abstract way, either: I mean that if he and I were in a room and disagreed about some issue on which I had any doubt at all, I'd literally trust his judgment over my own. I think he's smarter than me, better informed, better able to understand the consequences of his actions, and more farsighted. I voted for him because I trust his judgment, and I still do.
How's that working out for you, Kevin? Hard to say. But today Drum returns to the Libyan fiasco with the observation that all is not well on the shores of Tripoli:
So how are things going in Libya? One thing is becoming even more obvious than before: the rebel "army" is small, poorly trained, poorly armed, and unlikely to win on its own. ... Muammar Qaddafi's capabilities are pretty limited too, which means we might well be looking at an indefinite de facto partition of the country, with Qaddafi controlling Tripoli and the west and rebels controlling Benghazi and the east. ...
How many stalemates can a single president have on his plate at once ...?
I don't think anybody can trust Obama's judgment on military matters anymore, if they ever could.