I doubt that at this point any form of lasting peace in Libya is possible. Here is why:

[howard112211]

We (and the UN) are currently helping a group of rebels essentially to destroy the national army of Libya. It is clear that a "cease-fire" or "protection of civilians" is not the goal, but rather regime change, and the rebels are being encouraged to advance and conquer "strongholds", accompanied by UN airstrikes.

Now I would assume that the national army of Libya does not consist entirely of "mercenaries" but also of conscripts and volunteers, in other words, regular people who are following orders just as any US soldier would do.

Now it does not look like the military is going to stand down, but rather is retreated into the Western cities, where it is now awaiting the onslaught of UN forces and rebels.

Let's assume the rebels win this with the help of the UN. The battle for Tripolis will definately be bloody, and if the rebels are supposed to win it, will likely involve airstrikes in more populated areas.

Now let's say Ghaddafi surrender/is killed/goes into exile, and the rebels take control. What sort of reconciliation can emerge after such carnage? One would either have to disband the remaining military, potentially creating grudging militia groups who want to take revenge, or try to form a new natioal army out of the remainders. But which soldier would serve together with rebels who called airstrikes on his friends?

Assuming Ghaddafi's forces are not all "evil mercenaries", but to a large degree simply the "normal army of the nation Libya", this is a disaster.

The efforts, if any, should have been directed at ending the violence on both sides. But this whole UN backed westward push to take the capital is WRONG WRONG WRONG and will likely rip deep wounds into the collective spirit of the people of Libya, and serve only to alienate the people of Libya from each other.

[dbackjon]

1. Once the conflict started - deep wounds were inflicted

Whether the UN intervened, or just enforced a no-fly zone, there were deep wounds there already.

Blame Gaddafi for inflicting the wounds on the collective spirit of Libya for decades.

[howard112211]

3. It might have helped a little, if one wasn't so clearly choosing sides.

A demand for an immediate cease-fire, directed at both factions, might have done a little good.

[mazzarro]

2. I have asked this question in another post...

When the rebels attack, are they not attacking civilians as well?
Not that there is any love for Ghaddafi here, but lets not try to hide the fact that this war by the west and NATO is more of a revenge than anything else. Otherwise why is same not applicable to Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Syria, or even Israel. All these have attacked civilians repeatedly.

[tabatha]

4. The rebels have not killed any civilians.

Gaddafi has inflicted horrendous injuries on civilians, including bombing a children's hospital where several babies were killed. Many of the rebel's successes have been because the "army" (which was largely marginalized by Gaddafi, he put most of his money into personal security, and had to bring in loads of mercenaries as a result) defected to the rebels.

Please go to Juan Cole's web site and read all his entries on this subject. He has been a commentator on ME affairs for a long time and knows what he is talking about.

[tabatha]

5. It is clear from your commentary that

you have not been following this in depth. Libyans HATE Gaddafi, except for the few who have profited from him.

[howard112211]

13. We will see how that plays out when the rebels reach the capital.

[bemildred]

6. Peace is just when you stop for a while to prepare for more war anyway. nt

[sad sally]

7. War is not simple

Your deduction that this push to overthrow the Ghaddafi and his army will not necessarily bring about a "good" peace in Libya, as evidenced by past wars, is correct. While it's being conducted under the guise of the UN/Nato, it's difficult not to believe that the US is in charge. The US can pull off what appear to be stunning military victories (Shock and Awe air campaigns), but once the bullets stop flying, the political goals that were used to start wars are not usually accomplished. We can destroy a country's armies, but what replaces the armies in order to maintain the peace within the country isn't always good - peace becomes tribes against tribes.

[insileas]

8. Libya not the same as Iraq, but...

Oops, wrong thread.

[guruoo]

9. Primary responsibility for ending the bloodshed lies w/Ghaddafi. nt

[guruoo]

10. Dupe. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Taking sides in civil wars is is really smart. See Vietnam and Afghanistan for evidence.

Not to mention Cambodia, Laos, Angola, Mozambique, Nicaragua, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

[CJCRANE]

12. Gaddafi is mostly protected by elite forces and mercenaries.

He purposely made sure that the army was weak and not really a national force.

(Look to Egypt to see what happens to a dictator who is counterbalanced by a strong, respected national army).