I have fundamental reservations about this one, mostly because I want shrinking empires and indigenous empowerment and problem-solving, which in the long run saves lives and encourages real development with consequent survival and prosperity and dignity. (Yes, I was not very supportive of US involvement in Yugoslavia though I sided against the Serbs and didn't get too upset about the intervention when it happened, though we overlook the US role in the almost-as-bad Krajina Serb displacement.)

The appropriate comparison is Bosnia or Kosovo, or even Rwanda where a massacre is unfolding on live television and the world is challenged to act. It is time for the United States, NATO, the United Nations and the Arab League to act forcefully to try to prevent the already bloody situation from degenerating into something much worse.

Maybe, though the ideal situation is for it to let it resolve internally. Unlike the aforementioned situations this isn’t a case of armed sizeable populations against smaller or lesser armed populations, and/or groups acting across political frontiers, this is an embattled visibly shrinking, if vicious, regime against an increasingly armed populace.

Legally, if foreign intervention is warranted, the best thing to happen is for ex-Qaddhafi diplomats to formally request one, acting as representatives of a new government they can impute. Through the Arab League possibly and then to the UN and the UN can deputize NATO. Temporarily. Limited. And only if necessary. And then barely.

The key to these revolutions is they have to be and feel internally generated and sustained and not another Iraq.
If there must be intervention: Egypt has an air force, you know. American-made and paid and a special favorite of the old dictator. Put it to use.

By acting, I mean a response sufficiently forceful and direct to deter or prevent the Libyan regime from using its military resources to butcher its opponents.

That means bombing, in plain English. Possibly lots of it.

At minimum.

. Making that credible could mean the declaration and enforcement of a no-fly zone over Libya, presumably by NATO, to prevent the use of military aircraft against the protestors. It could also mean a clear declaration that members of the regime and military will be held individually responsible for any future deaths.

That means dog-fighting as well as bombing. Possibly ground fighting and setting up a boots-on-the-ground occupation. Or a long term sanctions-set if unsuccessful.

. . . it might also send a powerful warning to other Arab leaders who might contemplate following suit against their own protest movements.

Actually, and with brutal irony, contemplating following suit is what gets these people overthrown as the security forces and state establishment tend to balk when ordered and the populations tend to arise in anger.

And intervening via NATO does send a message that Europeans and Americans still decide the limits of what Arabs can do among themselves. That encourages dictators and discourages popular empowerment. Let’s not “neoconize” these revolts.

I don't have any illusions that the outside world can control what happens in Libya, if the regime really wants to try to hold power by force.

Actually, you kind of do believe they can control stuff, re-read the previous paragraphs. And probably you’re right that they can affect the situation, though not control all of it.

I don't call for a direct military intervention.

Actually, that’s exactly what you are doing.

And I am keenly, painfully aware of all that could go wrong with even the kinds of responses I am recommending.

Not so sure about that, either, or you might hesitate more. Interventions suck even when they are done by Serious Sympathetic Internationalists, and not just by George Bush. It’s the act, as well as the actors.

But right now those fears are outweighed by the urgent imperative of trying to prevent the already bloody situation from getting much, much worse.

Foreign firepower in the middle of a melee, without clear understanding of limits or even who is on who’s side can turn much much worse into much much much much much worse.

This is not a peaceful democracy protest movement which the United States can best help by pressuring allied regimes from above, pushing for long-term and meaningful reform, and persuading the military to refrain from violence. . . .

None of the others were totally peaceful and they decided mostly without the US.

It's gone well beyond that already, and this time I find myself on the side of those demanding more forceful action before it's too late. The steady stream of highly public defections from the regime suggest that rapid change is possible, yesterday's speech by Saif al-Islam Qaddafi and today's events suggest that so is terrible violence.

Foreign intervention should be the last resort. If the Libyan people want a free state, they’ll do probably be able to do it themselves. Of course if neighboring newly freer Arabs want to help, I’m sure no-fly zones and fraternal assistance is warranted. (Hint, hint).

I've been stunned by what Libyans inside the country and outside have been willing to say on the air about the regime --- prominent Libyan diplomats declaring Qaddafi to by a tyrant, major tribal leaders calling for his overthrow, Yusuf al-Qaradawi calling on the air for someone to shoot Qaddafi, and more. The Arab world's attention is focused on Libya now, after several days of a fragmented news agenda divided among Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, Egypt and more.

Sounds actually like maybe they can handle it on their own.

Voice after voice, Libyans and other Arabs alike, denounce the silence of the international community and call for action.

There’s been no international silence; everyone’s been loud and clear. Calling for action? Maybe. But it’s time to let people solve their own problems as much as possible. (Though again I wouldn’t object if the Egyptian air force acted especially on request from Libyan diplomats.)

Qaddafi has few friends, and Qatar has called for an urgent Arab League meeting to deal with the crisis.

The Arab League has more legitimate authority to intervene, so ideally if there must be intervention, it should be something like the Egyptian air force. Not the US. Though as Lynch notes, a body that is effectively a trade union for Arab dictators might not act.

While history doesn't suggest we can expect all that much from that club, their public support for international action could go a long way towards overcoming any suggestion that this is an imperialist venture.

Agreed there. But certainly by Marc Lynch conceding it might look like an imperialist venture he concedes he is calling for something that could include direct NATO-type foreign military intervention, if not invasion. And then of course, the inevitable need for occupation, transitional regimes, humanitarian assistance, stability maintenance, democracy nurturing assistance, force protection of diplomats and aid workers, protection against tribal violence, writing a new constitution, purple fingers, liberating veiled women, blah blah yadda yadda, etc.

And I am keenly, painfully aware of all that could go wrong with even the kinds of responses I am recommending.

I hope so. The above is a short list.

The great temptation of Rescue Heroism, or We Must Do Something To Save Lives are righteous vices and, admittedly, sometimes just righteous. We shall see. Though it does appear that the regime is collapsing without help from without.