Here is the news

US and UK may arm rebels if Gaddafi clings to power (Guardian)

Nato chief fears al-Qaeda have infiltrated rebels (Telegraph)

So if we rearm the rebels, some of this sophisticated weaponry might get into the hands of some people who really shouldn’t have it. And they are not going to be gentle with the people around Tripoli – under the terms of the UN Resolution we might find ourselves fighting against the rebels to protect Gaddafi’s people.

Yet if we do nothing Gaddafi will win, and, well, he doesn’t look like the ‘forgive and forget’ type to me. So to stop a massacre we are going to have to attack Gaddafi’s troops. Actually I don’t much object to hitting Gaddafi himself, if this is what we are going to do, because he has a military rank and is clearly directing matters.

But the Arab states, without whose agreement we would never have obtained the UN mandate, don’t much like the idea of us killing or deposing one of their own. Nor do the Turks, important members of NATO. And the Italians, whose airbases we are using, want to broker a ceasefire together with the Turks, and put Gaddafi into exile.

If we do that, the country will be rudderless. Britain and France have been saying we must let the Libyans decide their own affairs so there will have to be elections. They won’t be able to hold those for a while so the country will have to be run, like Egypt, by the army. Which army? Ours?

And suppose the Libyans vote on tribal lines in their traditional way, for Tripolitania, Cyrenaica and Fezzan. Will the country disintegrate? Will all of this have been just so the West could sponsor the break-up of Libya, back to where it was in 1934?

This is what happens when you interfere in other people’s fights without thinking first.