Ake, there was serious opposition to the invasion of Iraq on the part of most folkies I know. Say what you want, but them's the facts. I'm sure a poll here in 2003 would show overwhelmingly strong opposition to the Bush invasion of Iraq. And at the time, we had many more active Mudcatters than we have now.

The Libya thing was different. It was tied to the "Arab Spring," and many of us had the hope that multiple Arab nations would end years of tyranny - and Libya was viewed as the worst of those tyrannies. Turns out our hopes were misguided.

I don't know what Europeans thought at the time of the Arab Spring, but we here in the U.S. believed that U.S. military intervention was minimal and was intended to support freedom-seeking rebels who would otherwise be murdered by Ghaddafi.

Now we're stuck in a worse conundrum in Syria, where at lest three sides are fighting. Many voices are calling for the U.S. to intervene and stop the slaughter, but which side should we join? So, we're hesitant in Syria and are condemned for it; and we intervened in Libya and are condemned for that, too.

There are no easy answers, except for those who see in hindsight.

-Joe-