Leon Wieseltier: At least he's consistent!

You might remember that just as all this Libya drama was really getting kicked off a few weeks ago, I derided what I viewed as ill-considered advocacy for intervention by Leon Wieseltier. The broad outlines of the intervention/non-intervention debate have remained roughly the same in the intervening period -- most commentators have used the last three weeks to sharpen up their arguments with such compelling justifications as "look at all the people who agree with me/disagree with you," and that's something I've mostly tried to stay out of. But I couldn't help myself this afternoon when Ex pointed back over to good ol' Wieseltier, still harping on about American impotence and the staggering simplicity of effecting complicated political ends through the use of force. At least he's consistent, right? Hm, well, about that...

Here's what Wieseltier wrote today:

Of course nobody is suggesting that a single American soldier step foot on Libyan soil

But here's another distinguished foreign policy commentator back on February 25th:

Is the United States really prevented by its past from deploying the small number of troops that would be required to rescue Tripoli from Qaddafi’s bloody grip?

Apparently there is somebody suggesting that American soldiers step foot on Libyan soil. Or at least, there was somebody a couple of weeks ago, before pushback on even the prospect of a no-fly zone perhaps drove home for that guy just exactly how unpopular his proposal was with both the American electorate and the national security commentariat.

Oh, yeah, and this might also be noteworthy: that quote from last month was Wieseltier, too, of course.