There are three major points within Michael Walzer's poignantly written article in the March 20th issue of the New Republic. Walzer wrote concerning the U.S lead roll in establishing a no fly zone in Libya. Walzer states in his First point, "it is radically unclear what the purpose of the intervention…" He goes on to state "the attacks don't have what we should have insisted on from the very beginning…"He finally suggests, "The U.S. should have never invaded Libya." The U.S had no ligament reason to interfere with the Libyan rebellion. If the U.S decides to over throw Qaddafi we would need ground soldiers. Of course they do not have them because they are fighting in Iraq. One may infer from the article that neither France, Britain, nor the United States really wants soldiers there.
The rest of the Arab nation is staying out of this intervention. There is no help coming from Tunisia or Egypt. Even though the U.S has invested so much in to Egypt's army they have no help from them. Like Michael Walzer stated "That is a very bad sign, for the attacks will undoubtedly kill civilians, and these will be innocent men, women, and children, Arab and Muslim, killed (again) by the French, the British, and the Americans."