Pretty entertaining read.
I cite this news item from Bloomberg on the rebels' rejection of Chavez's generous offer of mediation (hilarious in itself) merely to quote the last paragraph. I can honestly say I've never seen so many people cited as contributing to a report:

"--With assistance from Vivian Salama, Massoud A Derhally, Thomas Penny and Blanche Gatt in London, Zainab Fattah, Inal Ersan and Glen Carey in Dubai, Bill Varner in Washington, Abdel Latif Wahba in Cairo, Jose Orozco in Caracas, Nathan Crooks in Santiago, Gregory Viscusi in Paris, Fred Pals and Jurjen van de Pol in Amsterdam and Margot Habiby in Dallas. Editors: Terry Atlas, John Brinsley"

Whew!

The Lounsbury -- It is a bit unsettling that you seem to have a good idea about where best to procure Soviet AA missiles on the black market, but entirely true to form...

On Western intervention, the only argument I can see for it is that it would either prevent large-scale killing or settle the conflict quickly. But it seems to me that both goals would require military intervention beyond a no-fly zone, possibly a lot more; and that anything less would simply mean involving Western powers in a civil war that could drag on for a long time.

That might still be the best choice (better than a Qaddafi victory), but it's not the clean, swift liberation many in the media seem to imagine. Most of the the discussion now seems to center on the idea that a no-fly zone and some clandestine meddling could ensure a quick rebel victory. I doubt it.

Unless Qaddafi faces an internal revolt or is dramatically weakened in some other way, I think he can hang on for quite some time. A protracted war could become very nasty and long-term destabilizing, if it turns tribal, regional etc, or if Western involvement fuels a nationalist/Islamist backlash.

Addendum: two good articles in The Economist.

http://www.economist.com/node/18283825

http://www.economist.com/node/18291539

Unless Qaddafi faces an internal revolt or is dramatically weakened in some other way, I think he can hang on for quite some time.

You don't think he is facing an internal revolt now?

This is really the key point. If the good colonel were gone, the remains of the existing power structure would quickly reach an accomodation with the "rebels." He might want to fight to the last drop of Libyan blood, but they do not, as it is their blood he is talking about.

A no-fly zone doesn't solve the problem. Taking out Qaddafi would and kill far fewer people in the process.

Rregarding weapons "leakage" to terrorists, first of all, with respect to Libya, plenty of weapons of all sorts have leaked already. But with a few exceptions, like C4, most military armaments aren't that useful to terrorists. Shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles have not been used against targets in the West, not because terrorists can't get ahold of them, but because they aren't that easy to import without detection. Of course, it could be done with sufficient resources, say, if you were a Columbian drug cartel. Luckily, however, Columbian drug cartels don't have that much of a grudge against civilian aviation.

You don't think he is facing an internal revolt now?

I don't really see Benghazi etc as "internal" to his regime anymore. I meant one of his cousins shooting him in the back of the head.

A no-fly zone doesn't solve the problem. Taking out Qaddafi would and kill far fewer people in the process.

That's probably correct, but it might take a LOT of military force to make sure you get him. I don't think it's likely to succeed with an air campaign only, and landing Western troops in Tripoli seems extremely far-fetched. Possibly if you tried some sort of Afghanistan 2001 scenario, with opposition forces advancing under close air cover. But right now the Libyan rebels don't seem to be organized enough to play the part of the Northern Alliance.

If a US/EU intervention had a high chance of success, and things were likely to stabilize after that, it might be a good idea. But a failed or half-hearted intervention that doesn't kill Qaddafi and/or doesn't stop the fighting risks making the situation a lot worse than it is today.

This could be a useful idea.

That's probably correct, but it might take a LOT of military force to make sure you get him.

He's not hiding in a cave in the middle of nowhere. He's standing on rooftops in Tripoli giving speeches. You don't need the 8th Cavalry. You need one Predator drone.

But the U.S. and the International community are too wimpy to contemplate this as it would require the assasination of a foreign "leader". A pity, really. Perhaps the U.S. could recognize the rebels as the legitimate government of Libya, have them declare Qaddafi a terrorist and then take him out. That's almost exactly what the U.S. did in Afghanistan.

Whatever works.