I don’t understand articles like this. “It was a mistake to kill Qaddafi,” like we should have a say in the matter. Or, rather, a say is all we should have in the matter. They’re ultimately responsible for the doing.

Now, I’m not saying the rebels were thinking about it at the time, but if they actually thought, “do we do him now or take him to the Hague,” they’d probably have shot him a few more times in the face to make sure.

Yeah, let’s show our support for this populist uprising by making sure the guy who’s been killing them all these years gets to live a bit longer while northern Europeans – who, of course, always had North Africans’ best interests at heart – deliberate over how civilized they can be to a mass-murderer. How very paternalist, especially when his death now casts a shroud over the ‘trustworthiness’ of the new transitional leaders (at least, in the eyes of Republicans looking to qualify Obama’s foreign policy victory). As if our history in the region gives us any sort of moral high ground.

So it’s with this view that I wonder the motives of those looking to ‘temper’ Libyan hearts from afar; those who wax philosophic about their ability to self-rule. I’m not justifying revenge murders, but considering that this has been a success on all accounts precisely because of the considerable lack of force the United States has brought to bear – in effect, very pointedly not turning Libya into another Iraq – and as such has allowed the Libyans to effectively own their victory, they should, then, be allowed to own their transition.

We should support, not direct the proceedings.

Similarly, as we watch the Palestinian demand for statehood recognition die a slow death in the UN security council’s committee deliberations, it would seem that the question we should ask ourselves is just how much our sovereignty matters more than their sovereignty. I’m reminded of a Ted Rall comic on the matter: Just whose permission did we ask to exist?