From the opinion pages of the New York Times, here is a great article detailing why aid to Yemen is critical in its time of transition:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/opinion/25johnsen.html

I believe that the dangers of non-engagement described by the author apply to all of the countries emerging from dictatorship, but with different concerns and requirements.

One of the aspects of the Arab Spring that is dampening my enthusiasm is the fact that there is so much change occurring at once.  One of the examples of the Iraq war that the world should be paying attention to, is the commitment required to escort a country towards post-dictatorial democratic development.

If the leaders fall, but the regimes remains in place, this is only symbolic improvement.  The real revolution occurs in convincing people to do business differently.  For example, if the Theocracy were toppled in Iran, we would still have the Iranian Revolutionary Guard controlling most of the business interests in the country.  This organization would thus maintain most of the control in the country, and would continue to thrive no matter what political entity claimed to be in control in Tehran.  Wresting control away from people with a vested economic interest in the status quo is far more difficult than demonstrating on the street against a figurehead.

There is so much work ahead of us in any one particular country, but to have half a dozen countries on the verge of anarchy in the space of 3 months forebodes an extremely anxious time in human history, especially when ongoing commitments, domestic politics, and economic constraints will reduce the potential for global leadership focused by America.

This is interesting: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12864460.  He's reduced to doling out guns to "volunteers" with all the obvious risks entailed in that.

Read towards the bottom about the siege of Adjabiya:

"Fleeing residents said the streets were deserted, and that government troops were opening fire at random."

And that's the thing.  The only way he can keep control is by killing everyone so that only his goons are left standing.  As I said earlier, a rational dictator (Mubarak, Ben Ali etc) would have seen the contradictions involved in committing suicide in order to survive.  Gaddafi doesn't.  Whatever the motives for the intervention (and I wholly mistrust them) , it is necessary.

BigC,

He's reduced to doling out guns to "volunteers" with all the obvious risks entailed in that.

That is going on everywhere.  Here is one of the earliest news reports that I found on the rebel organizational development, with similiarly chilling prospects for the future:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41831732/ns/world_news-africa/

Leaders of the revolutionary coalition based in Benghazi's courthouse have sought to reassure the public that guns are not falling into young, untrained hands.

But some evidence suggests civilians in Benghazi region are stocking up on weapons found after Gaddafi's forces fled.

That could make it harder for rebel army officers to stop the emergence of badly-disciplined militias lacking the coordination to fend off a major assault from the west.

Callers to Benghazi's "liberated" radio station have complained that guns are now "in the hands of children."

Rebel soldiers at a military base in Djabiya, 150 km southwest of Benghazi, said light weapons had already been distributed to young men from the town.

Very hilarious article

Robert Gates has found out there are authoritarian regimes in the Middle East. Three. Can you guess which? Er, Saudi Arabia, perhaps? Nope. Bahrain? Hell, no. Israel? Stupid question. Jordan, where at least one demonstrator was killed today and about 200 injured? Oh no.

Syria, Iran, and Libya. And that's it. (Question to the Americans here: do you really count Libya to the Middle East or has Gates no idea of geography?)

And then he even lauds Egypt’s army, which is still fighting the opposition as “empowering revolution”!

Momo,

You have such aggressive ignorance.  Here is the excerpt that you are referring to:

The White House condemned Syria's "brutal repression of demonstrations" and said those responsible for the violence must be held accountable.

The Egyptian military, which receives about $1.3 billion a year in U.S. aid, has run a caretaker government in Cairo since Mubarak was forced to step down on February 11 following mass demonstrations against his three-decade rule.

Gates cited Syria, Libya and Iran as examples of "authoritarian regimes (that) have suppressed their people and have been willing to use violence against them."

"And so I think that what we see is the opening to the future that's occurring in virtually all of these countries," said Gates.

At no point is it ever implied that these are the only repressive regimes in the region.  And, as far as the region goes, yes, I would consider Libya to be a part of the Middle East as it is being used in this context.

Opinions vary as to what countries make up the modern definition of the Middle East. Historically, Armenia and Azerbaijan have been long associated with the Middle East, but in recent years, some sources now consider them to be more closely aligned with Europe based on their modern economic and political trends. We have moved in that direction, and the same applies for the island country of Cyprus, as it does for Georgia, the former Russian republic.

The African country of Egypt is still thought (by some) to be in the Middle East, as well as the northern African countries that border the Mediterranean Sea.

Here we attempt to show the modern definition of the Middle East, but in world of geography, there are often many answers or (personal or political opinions) to what appears to be a simple question

http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/me.htm

“You have such aggressive ignorance.”

From your position in the glasshause this is the most stupid thing you could say. Epic Fail.

“Here is the excerpt that you are referring to”

A very short excerpt. The article I cited quotes Gates more thoroughly. And there you see that he really made it sound as if these three countries were the only repressive ones in the region, for obvious reasons. The only countries where he welcomes an opposition movement. It implies that all other Middle Eastern countries should be “stable”, no matter how repressive.

The question about the use of “Middle East” was a genuine question, by the way, because the German equivalent (or not equivalent) connotes “Asia” among other things. That means Egypt being partly Asian would be included, but Libya belongs to Maghreb.

More info on how the protection of civilians fails, because the intervention is in reality support for one side in an internal conflict:

Aid workers said the number of women and children fleeing Libya had risen since Western powers, enforcing a U.N.-mandated no-fly zone in the north African country, began launching strikes against Gaddafi's forces last week.

With no money, the migrants said many of them had been harassed, detained and beaten by Libyan gunmen after reports emerged that Gaddafi, the loyalty of his armed forces proving unreliable, had turned to mercenaries from elsewhere in Africa to support his crackdown.

"Any black person, they call them mercenaries," said Suleiman Abdallah, a 24-year-old Somali worker.

The question about the use of “Middle East” was a genuine question

No, it wasn't.  Directed as it was to Americans with the assumption of geographical ignorance is yet another installment of your propagation of the American stereotype.  Be honest.

But, I won't respond to you at this point.  We have made it this far without allowing you to crash yet another thread with your maniacal idiocy, and I will not be the one to allow that to happen.  Later, miststuck.

I have BBQ sauce on my fingers.  That last line was supposed to read, "later, miss stuck up".

I hadn't even heard that rumor about Gadaffi's son Khamis being killed.  Sounds like rebel propaganda, but who knows:

Khamis Gadhafi was killed earlier this week after a disaffected Libyan air force pilot who crash-landed his jet in the ruling family's headquarters, according to unconfirmed reports cited by ABC News and Al-Arabiya television. He died from burn injuries after the crash, the reports said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/25/ap/business/main20047350.shtml

Why not just unload your missiles into the compound and then fly to Malta, write a book, and retire in Florida?

Al Jazeera is reporting that rebel fighters have entered the town of Ajdabiya from the east, with loyalists holding the western portion.  I believe that Ajdabiya was as far as the loyalists advanced before the offensive stalled, and began to be pummelled by airstrikes.

The rebels have been making their way steadily down the highway over the past few days, and the ability to fight their way back into Ajdabiya is significant.  This should mean that the loyalists are cut off, as the coalition is not allowing any movement by Gadaffi's forces, so apparently reinforcements or evacuation may be an impossibility.  We might see a surrender in the coming days.

I believe that Ajdabiya was the concentration of the eastward thrust, and if those loyalist forces fall there, we should see Brega and, hopefully, Ras Lanuf return to the rebels in the near future.

Controlling Brega and Ras Lanuf gives the rebels control of the vast majority of Libyan raw material exports.  What they do with them will define who they actually are: Build a society, or fight for ultimate control over more wealth than anyone would ever plausibly need.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/03/201132521323292102.html