'Arab Spring' is going the way of 'Prague Spring'

The use of the term "Arab Spring" is becoming as archaic as "Prague Spring," which some readers might recall was the hopeful transformation in the Czechoslovakian capital in 1968, before Soviet-allied troops quashed the liberalization. Like that earlier spring, the "Arab Spring" appears headed for a cold winter.

The latest news from Libya looks a bit like the news from the 1960s, when Colonel Qaddafi took control of the nation. Since Qaddafi's overthrow by a popular rebellion in 2011, the country has been a chaotic morass of competing armed militia and a weak or non-existent central government. Into the morass steps Khalifa Heftar, a retired general who has accumulated enough firepower to take on at least some of the Islamist militias that control segments of the country. Heftar sees himself as the country's salvation, but so did Qaddafi.

As for the "Arab Spring," high winds have blown away that welcome breeze, and it seems unlikely ever to return.

The United States has been largely on the sidelines of what is happening in North Africa and the Arab world. President Obama and Congress, reluctant to engage in another ground war in the Middle East, were extremely cautious in lending support to the anti-Qaddafi rebels three years ago. Some air support was provided, but American lives were not put at risk. A year later, Islamist terrorists killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and other Americans in Benghazi.

While Washington seems fixated on the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya has slipped further and further into the quagmire of ungovernable militias and sectarian violence.

What are we getting ourselves into?

News of a conflagration in Libya has filled headlines for weeks, but the news today came as a shock. American and allied aircraft and missiles had struck not only the radar installations and surface-to-air missile sites in Libya but also ground troops and even a residence of Colonel Muammar Qaddafi.

What are we getting ourselves into? The photos and video from Tripoli look a lot like the scenes from Baghdad just eight years ago. President Obama and European leaders swear we will not get involved in a civil war in Libya, but using military force to aid one side against another looks an awful lot like getting involved in a civil war.

The United Nations voted to impose a no-fly zone over Libya as a means of preventing Qaddafi from slaughtering Libyans who wanted to overthrow him. American troops and armament are being used to support the anti-Qaddafi forces and to prevent Qaddafi from attaining his military objectives. No one in Europe or America is an admirer of Qaddafi. He has supported and exported terrorism for decades while strutting about as an Arab Napoleon. He has oppressed Libya and prohibited any political opposition. He is detestable. But is it America's or Europe's role to overthrow him? How much American blood and treasure are we willing to spend to ensure that Qaddafi doesn't prevail? Having set the precedent in Libya, will America be willing to lend military support to rebels in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iran, Saudi Arabia or whatever Arab nation is the next to crush a popular revolt? And we have little reassurance that Qaddafi's successor will be any more democratic or humanitarian than he has been.

The world was appalled by Qaddafi's ruthless attacks on his fellow countrymen, but evil exists around the world, not just in Libya. Neither America nor the United Nations can save every poor dissident from every ruthless dictator, but we can get bogged down in a civil war in which we have little at stake. It looks like we're already there.