Clearly America is confused by the whole Libya situation. Interestingly, there are parallels with our own rebellion to gain independence. We, (Libya and Colonial America), were both ruled by dictators, demanding an uprising if we were ever to gain our freedom. The odds were never in our favor, England was the most powerful army on earth, and Qadaffi has superior firepower the rebels only dream of. In both cases only outside intervention could have turned the tide. Additionally, France was involved in both interventions. Also eerily similar is not everyone in both countries were 100% behind the uprising. France and England share economic hopes for Libyan oil trade, and they both eyed the New World as a trade partner in colonial times.
Here's where the Libyan freedom fighters blew it....
Colonial America defined it's mission, and announced to the world what the goals were, in the form of The Declaration of Independence. The world knew who was behind the revolt, and what their intentions were. We can't define that in Libya. Who is their George Washington? America sent Ben Franklin to France to ask for assistance, we had a representative for our cause. He secured funds, weapons, and manpower because France knew who they were dealing with, and what they hoped to accomplish. None of that is evident in Libya, hence the American hesitation. We don't want to fund or arm the Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood, or Hezbollah. There isn't a politician crazy enough in the free world to take that gamble.
Orrin Woodward, has always told me, "begin with the end in mind," and "guard your associations, they are a reflection of who you are." Without Libya taking the steps Colonial America did, we could be backing a terrorist faction. Is there a leadership in this revolt? Who is in charge? The orders have to be coming from somewhere.Even as disorganized as they seem, there is some method of organization.
Time will tell who we are dealing with, but history is there to guide them if they choose to learn from the past.