It took the greatest military alliance in history five months to push the Libyan rebels across the finish line. Western politicians are claiming victory, but no one knows what comes next.
Libya was yet another unnecessary war of choice. Allied leaders could point to no discernible security interest. Muammar Gaddafi was an unpleasant dictator, but until March he had been feted by the West for abandoning his nuclear programme and combating Islamic extremism. Unfortunately, ousting his regime has made proliferation more likely: abundant Libyan chemical weapons and anti-aircraft missiles may leak abroad.
Moreover, US and Nato intervention will encourage unpopular regimes to develop and keep weapons of mass destruction. The campaign was possible only because of Tripoli's disarmament. What other pariah regime is going to agree to denuclearisation when the allies might later decide to initiate regime change?
The war may energise regional terrorist networks. Islamic militants have been freed from Libyan jails, and a number of the rebels had fought with al-Qaeda in Iraq or battled allied forces in Afghanistan.
The Western campaign also made future UN backing less likely even for a war of necessity. China and Russia acquiesced to a UN resolution authorising military action only to protect Libyan civilians. The allies turned the operation into a campaign to oust the Gaddafi government.
The war's backers proclaimed the mission to be humanitarian, but Gaddafi had slaughtered no civilians in any of the cities he had retaken from the rebels. His incendiary rhetoric - routinely ignored for 42 years - was directed against armed insurgents, not noncombatants. In any case, by adopting a minimalist military policy, Nato prolonged the conflict, resulting in more deaths.