Regime Change Libya?

GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD gets the neocon-crazy photo-credit, at "Libyavention."

But see Wall Street Journal, "U.S. Wavers on 'Regime Change'"

WASHINGTON — After weeks of internal debate on how to respond to uprisings in the Arab world, the Obama administration is settling on a Middle East strategy: help keep longtime allies who are willing to reform in power, even if that means the full democratic demands of their newly emboldened citizens might have to wait.

Instead of pushing for immediate regime change—as it did to varying degrees in Egypt and now Libya—the U.S. is urging protesters from Bahrain to Morocco to work with existing rulers toward what some officials and diplomats are now calling "regime alteration."

The approach has emerged amid furious lobbying of the administration by Arab governments, who were alarmed that President Barack Obama had abandoned Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and worried that, if the U.S. did the same to the beleaguered king of Bahrain, a chain of revolts could sweep them from power, too, and further upend the region's stability.

The strategy also comes in the face of domestic U.S. criticism that the administration sent mixed messages at first in Egypt, tentatively backing Mr. Mubarak before deciding to throw its full support behind the protesters demanding his ouster. Likewise in Bahrain, the U.S. decision to throw a lifeline to the ruling family came after sharp criticism of its handling of protests there. On Friday, the kingdom's opposition mounted one of its largest rallies, underlining the challenge the administration faces selling a strategy of more gradual change to the population.

Administration officials say they have been consistent throughout, urging rulers to avoid violence and make democratic reforms that address the demands of their populations. Still, a senior administration official acknowledged the past month has been a learning process for policy makers. "What we have said throughout this is that there is a need for political, economic and social reform, but the particular approach will be country by country," the official said.

Right.

A learning process. Frankly, White House foreign policy is FUBAR, as Niall Ferguson noted a couple of weeks ago at Newsweek. A U.S. carrier group off the Egyptian coast might have sent a signal for Mubarak to step down a lot sooner than he did, and a Marine landing at Suez might have bolstered the opposition, and perhaps crushed forces loyal to the Muslim Brotherhood. Of course, anything along those lines could have led to a long-term U.S. occupation and an intense outcry around the Arab world. What's interesting is that despite all of these dangers, folks keep raising the prospects of U.S. military action in the region. See Micah Zenko, at Foreign Policy, "No-Go: A No-Fly Zone Over Libya Will Not Be Easy or Painless." And the roundup at New York Times, "Should the U.S. Move Against Qaddafi?"