Robert Paul Wolff on the U.S.'s involvement in the Libyan revolution

There is of course some controversy about the rightness of international intervention in the Libyan revolution. I think Wolff has captured it pretty well in the below paragraph, taken from his most recent weblog entry.

[I]t seems wrong to leave the Libyan rebels to be slaughtered by Ghadafi, and wrong to launch yet another war. My own belief, suggested several times on this blog, is that the United States should not have an enormous imperial military establishment in the first place. It ought to have a force only large enough to protect the United States from the -- at this point minuscule -- threat of invasion. Once we build a military establishment that dwarfs that of the entire rest of the world, it is inevitable that we will find all manner of excuses for using it. The Libyan case is actually one of the very rare instances in which the United States can be said to have entered a foreign conflict on the right side, but it would be far better if we had a military force quite incapable of playing that role on the world stage. Sixty-five years of experience since World War II demonstrates that this nation is quite incapable of using its enormous military force wisely or well.

But I'm not sure; and moreover, I'm not in a position to adjudicate. And neither, according to his own admission, is Wolff. Thoughts? (There are comments on this paragraph in Wolff's own weblog, by the way.)