Here's a foreign-policy head-scratcher for ya

Why is the post-American State Department criticizing Egypt and the UAE for teaming up to conduct air strikes against the Islamist militia that has taken over Tripoli and much of Libya?

Jen Psaki says it's an interference in Libya's "democratic transition."  Huh?  Neither word in that stunner of a phrase depicts present-day Libya.

Excuse me, but they're doing pretty much what we've commenced doing against the IS caliphate a few miles to the northeast.

 Tripoli isn’t beingliberated by democrats, but captured by radical Islamists who will impose another dictatorship on the ancient city.

That’s the outcome that Egypt and the UAE want to prevent, and that’s especially important to Egypt. Sisi’s military government has outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood, the parent organization of these radical terrorist networks, after Mohamed Morsi tried to impose a shari’a state on Egypt after an election. They want the secular militias to emerge as the controlling clique instead. That may not sound palatable to the Obama administration — but that’s precisely the outcome that the administration favored in Syria, and the strategy which it’s attempting to follow there now after the rise of ISIS.

To call this finger-wagging incoherent is an exercise in understatement. It’s difficult to know what “democratic transition” this administration believes is in process in Libya, because it exists only in their fantasy world where their foreign policy has enjoyed the entirety of its success.

Just what we need: an alienated al-Sisi regime in Egypt.  Post-America is running out of allies, let alone friends, at a rate I've never seen.