Libya's interim government made a correct, startlingly independent judgment just before Thanksgiving, announcing that Libya, not the International Criminal Court (ICC), would try Saif al-Islam Qaddafi, Moammar Qaddafi's favorite son and once-likely successor.

Today there is much that we can do, without a costly military commitment, to help Libyans build a better future. This is leadership the US can afford. In the end, we will pay a higher price if we do nothing.

The Transitional National Council (TNC) has pledged to move rapidly to elections, but there are still many outstanding questions about control of the entire country, the ability to manage fractious tribes, how elections would take place, armed citizens, recalcitrant Gadhafi family members. In some ways, getting Gadhafi was simpler than rebuilding the country he terrorized for so long.

As Washington considers slashing $500 billion from the defense budget over the next decade, the lessons of Libya should give pause to anyone whose plans will reduce the U.S. military's ability to control the air.

Libya, with no history of unity across its tribes and no record of democracy or legitimate government by self-rule, may well flounder and be the scene of a new dictator, a fundamentalist takeover or anarchy. But this has played out in a way that gives a great chance of success, at a lower cost to the United States, than anyone might have imagined.

How applicable is this model of indigenous regime change supported by an international coalition with the United States in a supporting role to future efforts to prevent atrocities?

As NATO summits go, this weekend's meeting of the alliance's members in Chicago may be memorable if only for being the least memorable one in recent history. Of course, quiet summits are not necessarily bad summits. 

In anticipation of the upcoming vote on the War Powers Act resolutions in the U.S. House of Representatives, the following AEI Scholars are available for comment: