If the West (US) wants to "control" the Middle East with dictators, maybe it should let Gaddafi win.

[pampango]

I'm playing devil's advocate here, but if Gaddafi can reestablish absolute control of Libya using military might, that might be good for the flow of oil to the West. (Not good for the Libyan people or democracy or freedom or anything else, just for the flow of oil to the West.)

Staying out of the conflict could help Gaddafi win this struggle. That would send a powerful message to Saudi Arabia and other oil-producing countries in the area that using tanks and planes on civilians will be criticized by the West, but in the end they will see the "wisdom" of continued dictatorial control of the oil flow and will not intervene directly. (They get to seem "non-imperialistic" and supportive of freedom - at least verbally - yet they regain the sure flow of oil that kings and dictators have traditionally assured.)

Intervention in any form would certainly be dangerous and risky, anyway. I could see the case that some in the West would prefer to let revolutions in oil-producing countries fail. Democracies in these countries may seem to some to be less reliable sources of oil than the traditional rulers have been.

The best resolution would be for the people to defeat Gaddafi with minimal, if any, outside help. That is still possible, maybe even still likely - but it is not a certainty. If Gaddafi is able to turn the tide that has been sweeping against him and make a military comeback, we would face interesting choices.

[Buzz Clik]

1. It worked with Saddam until GWB took his chance at revenge.

And the Shah in Iran. And our snuggly relationship with the royal family in Saudi Arabia.

It's quite a long list.

[pampango]

8. In terms of the flow of oil, Libya is a proving ground for change in Saudi Arabia.

Libya's oil exports are much smaller than SA's and go mainly to Europe.

If Gaddafi proves that the use of tanks and planes on civilians in order to maintain control is acceptable to the West, despite Libya's relatively small oil exports, the king of SA will be feel much more secure about his own future. If Gaddafi's tenacity and willingness to use heavy weapons on civilians eventually fails to keep him in power, my guess is that the Saudi royals will not sleep well and those who worry about SA's role as the world's main oil exporter will worry, indeed.

[Buzz Clik]

9. What he's doing is seeing if anything has changed.

What you describe has been his past mode of operation.

[JVS]

2. Gaddafi is one of the least pro-western leaders around, but here's the deal:

As long as someone has control over the oil and is bringing it to the market where we can buy it, the West is happy. If the country collapses and nobody is able to maintain the infrastructure to extract the oil and bring it to market, then the West is a sad panda.

[joshcryer]

3. He's anti-west but ever since the normalization he's been fine with western countracts.

It's like Venezuela saying they hate the west yet the US being a very big oil guzzler. Libya has been getting lots of arms contracts with the west, Gaddafi arguably was a friend of the west when this started.

[JVS]

4. With the absence of the Soviets, everyone makes some kind of peace with the West.

Unless you're North Korea, in which case you tell the whole world to prepare to die. Ghaddafi has never been the West's ideal of a leader for Egypt. He funds way too much political activism for that.

[joshcryer]

6. Hard to parse? Egypt?

Gaddafi was doing huge profitable deals with the west before this started, arguably more profitable than any other middle eastern country except Saudi Arabia. Hell, Egypt was taking money from the US, no real profitable deal there except to pay for basically a pro-Israel army.

[elias49]

7. I miss the Cold War. Really. nt

[karynnj]

5. What Libya shows is how difficult it is to decide the correct course

I think the world is taking a course between the two you identify.

At this point, we seem to be moving to do all the things that can be done that are non-military in nature. It has been taken to the UN and the rest of the world has backed a resolution. Countries are freezing Gaddafi money in various countries. Sanctions are being placed. Yet, Gaddafi is still attacking his own people. One subtle international effort was to speak of the Hague and war crimes - and people like John Kerry (importantly not in the administration) suggested that high level Libyan officers need to consider that they personally would be held responsible. There have been some ministers and officers who have deserted Gadaffi.

But those efforts might not suffice. In Libya, we may face the choice of standing and watching murders or intervening on some level. This is not Iraq, where we attacked unilaterally. It may be that the world community should establish a no fly zone, which would at least prevent Gaddafi from using his air resources against the people. It is clear from Gates, that this is not an easy thing to do - nor as passive as it might sound - as they would need to destroy any Libyan anti-air craft capabilities.

Though it may seem counter-intuitive, I think that the US needs to NOT consider short term future oil sales in deciding what to do, but to follow what we think is best for the stability of the region long term and what is best for the people. But, it is important to let the libyan people lead. So far, that is what the world has done, while putting their thumb on the scale as much as they can without entering the conflict militarily.

[BeFree]

10. Eh? You talking to me? OK

One: Gaddafi is going down. Tonight, tomorrow, soon.

Two: All this freedom is costing me at the pump.
The fear of freedom has the rich speculators making even greater profits.

Three: If the Libyans want us to save them, they should agree to pay us.
If they don't want to pay, we should leave them alone.