Nicholas Kristof, one of Obama's most enthusiastic cheerleaders at the New York Times, published a column from Libya on August 31, 2011 in which he declares the NATO Libyan operation a success. (Before you ask, it's difficult to single out any Times staffer from the Gray Lady's herd of Obama sycophants, but Kristof is as egregious an example as any.)

In his piece, Kristof  breathlessly relates his interactions with Libyans expressing their gratitude to President Obama.

Kristof: "Tripoli now feels reasonably safe. The biggest menace comes not from Qaddafi militias but from rebels firing automatic weapons into the air in celebration."

If a New York Times Op-Ed writer can tour areas of Libya, the war is unquestionably over, right?

Or is it?

Clearly, Kristof is spending no time in areas still experiencing significant fighting or where black Africans are being slaughtered by the Libyan rebels.

George Friedman of Stratfor Global Intelligence doesn't share Kristof's rosy view of the Libyan engagement.

Friedman, published August 30, 2011:

The war in Libya is over. More precisely, governments and media have decided that the war is over, despite the fact that fighting continues.

...

Given that the dying is far from over, it is interesting to consider why Barack Obama, Nicolas Sarkozy and David Cameron, the major players in this war, all declared last week that Gadhafi had fallen, implying an end to war, and why the media proclaimed the war's end. To understand this, it is important to understand how surprising the course of the war was to these leaders. From the beginning, there was an expectation that NATO intervention, first with a no-fly zone, then with direct airstrikes on Gadhafi's position, would lead to a rapid collapse of his government and its replacement with a democratic coalition in the east.

Don't miss an opportunity to read about the entire muddled Libyan mess.