[Zhang Fei]

My theory is that the Saudis strong-armed the Arab League into going along with the no-fly zone, and the attempt to remove Gaddafi. Why? Gaddafi tried to knock off Crown Prince Abdullah (now king) back in 2003. Very bad move on Gaddafi's part, especially given that the man he picked to do the job was arrested and sang like a canary. I have to wonder if Abdullah is looking beyond revenge in looking to topple Gaddafi - surely a bin Laden ally running Libya can't be good for Saudi Arabia.

[Zhang Fei]

Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia on how the Libyan revolt began:

On January 24, 2010, Libya blocked access to YouTube after it featured videos of demonstrations in the Libyan city of Benghazi by families of detainees who were killed in Abu Salim prison in 1996

Whose were these detainees? They were members of Islamist groups who were arrested after an assassination attempt against Gaddafi in 1996. How were they killed? In the putting down of a prison revolt in which 200 prison guards were killed.

[arrogantsob]

I say let Gaddafi wipe ‘em out. I prefer a A-hole like the Colonel to an al Quada backed regime.

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

Why would the Saudis want to keep the fires of rebellion burning? A sound thrashing of the revolutionaries in Libya would have a profound psychological effect on the revolutionaries in Bahrain and the would-be revolutionaries in The Kingdom.

The UN Resolution give the rebels new life. I don’t see how that benefits the House of Saud in the big picture, regardless of Abdullah’s personal score with Q’Daffy.

[Cheetahcat]

Let them kill each other!

[FreeReign]

In November 2007, the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point received nearly 700 records of foreign nationals... Libya was the next most common country of origin, with 18.8% (112) of the fighters listing their nationality stating they hailed from Libya.

These supposed "700 records" contradict other reports that show very few foreign fighters in Iraq were Libyan.

Looks like possible misinformation to me.

[Robe]

ping

[ScottinVA]

Of course the “rebellion” has radical islamic militancy at its roots. Why else would al-Qaeda support it? Would AQ throw its support behind a revolution ushering in peaceful, constitutional governance?

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

One thing that seems to be getting lost here is that Libya under Gaddhafi was the hotbed for sending jihadis to kill Americans. So apparently, him being in charge isn't exactly the best way to limit jihadism.

The neocon theory is that people who live in a democratic state, or at least in a state where they have the prospect of influence over their own government, are more likely to direct their energies inward rather than outward. That seems intuitively likely to me. So if (and that's a big if) we can turn what is currently a prime jihadi recruiting ground into a place where those people have the prospect for ruling themselves, either via ballot or bullet, and at little cost to us, that is a good thing.

But I think the ship may have already sailed on that a couple of weeks ago, when the rebels were at their zenith and a NFZ may have tipped the scales in their favor. Now, Gaddhafi has all but won. And his "amnesty" may end up being that you'll be permitted to leave the country in peace if you go somewhere else to fight the infidels.

[swarthyguy]

Khaddafy had been trending Westwards; now, whatever happens, he will go his own way and can create some hassles for the West. And feeling betrayed, he may even resort to his old habits.

Stupid, stupid move.

No vital or strategic interest for the USA in essentially a tribal and civil war with the Ikhwans lurking in the background and guiding some of the fighting.