Libya: Benghazi unrest, to Civil War, to a new government and Gaddafi's death.

[Silent Hunter]

Some British commander said that if Gaddafi or his sons are in any compound being hit, they'll be considered legitimate targets.

So, what targets are "ilegitimate"?

The precise list is in all likelihood classified, but hospitals would certainly be on the "illegitimate" list somewhere.

[Silent Hunter]

Many of the news stories say that Tripoli is cut off, though the map suggests that they should still be able to re-supply from Chad or Sudan via Bani Walid and the south:

That's a very long drive - and the roads would be covered by aircraft.

[Silent Hunter]

I think it's safe to say the writing's on the wall...

I suppose people here know where that expression actually comes from...

[Silent Hunter]

Which might lead to a civil war, especially if some groups have reason to believe that Gaddafi isn't really gone. I'm curious about the next Rasmussen poll. We just might see real and permanent movement away from Obama because of this.

If the past six months haven't been a civil war, then what have they been?

[Silent Hunter]

I highly doubt that there will be a military intervention in Syria.  The Syrian military's strong enough and the rebellion disorganized enough that the "NATO airpower plus local rebel soldiers on the ground" model has zero chance of success (call me back if the Syrian rebels become a realistic military force).  Without that, there's simply no way to oust Assad without NATO (esp. American) boots on the ground, and that simply is not going to happen.

Not to mention that Israel wouldn't really like a pro-Western government in Syria, as it would remove their justification for holding the Golan heights.

They wouldn't need the Golan Heights with a pro-Western government in Syria.

[Silent Hunter]

They're right. I think an American court would probably laugh out the case as double jeopardy, anyway. At the least, it would be an interesting constitutional question whether foreign trials, especially those resulting in conviction, count towards the constitutional prohibition on double jeopardy.

Also, "non-extradition of citizens" rules are by no means uncommon.

Plus the guy appears to be in a coma now.

[Silent Hunter]

I don't believe in possibility of military intervention in Syria for following reasons:

1. NATO and US are already quite tired with Libya and obviously have little idea what to do with present problem
2. Obama already took a huge political risk in joining intervention in Libya. He's neither gambler nor an idiot
3. No player in the region wants regime change. Israel doesn't love Assad, but don't want to risk losing a predictable neighbour either. Neither wants Lebanon. Saudis and other Gulf monarchies are worried about spreading of the unrests and will sit with the present rulers (hell, Saudis are already scared with Yemen and were with Bahrain). Iran is a close Syrian ally. Iraq is too concerned about it's own fragile security and fragile government to wish any additional meltdown.

Also, the Russians (the primary weapons seller to Assad) don't want to lose a major client.

[Silent Hunter]

I don't believe in possibility of military intervention in Syria for following reasons:

1. NATO and US are already quite tired with Libya and obviously have little idea what to do with present problem
2. Obama already took a huge political risk in joining intervention in Libya. He's neither gambler nor an idiot
3. No player in the region wants regime change. Israel doesn't love Assad, but don't want to risk losing a predictable neighbour either. Neither wants Lebanon. Saudis and other Gulf monarchies are worried about spreading of the unrests and will sit with the present rulers (hell, Saudis are already scared with Yemen and were with Bahrain). Iran is a close Syrian ally. Iraq is too concerned about it's own fragile security and fragile government to wish any additional meltdown.

Also, the Russians (the primary weapons seller to Assad) don't want to lose a major client.

As if their opinion mattered...

Considering they've got a UNSC veto, it does.

[Silent Hunter]

Interesting issue coming up, maybe. The NATO bombing is officially justified as a means of protecting civilians (we all know that the real reason is regime change, but let's ignore that for a moment).

The idea is that regime change is necessary to protect civilians.

Quite - removing Gaddafi is the best way to protect civilians in the long run.

[Silent Hunter]

I see that Venezuela and Cuba voted against.

[Silent Hunter]

I think Russia's entire policy on Libya over the years can be summed up with this picture: