With the so-called allied forces struggling to make a decision about who should supervise the no-fly zone over Libya and what will be the direction now, since last Thursday's UN Security Resolution 1973, the situation for the Libyan rebels is dire and getting rapidly worse.
If the allies can't make a decision then surely Gaddafi will. He could step up a ground war against the rebels and it's unclear how fighter jets will prevent that. Yet there is uncertainty as to who is the more organized, Gaddafi or the rebels? There have been comparisons in the media with Ceaucescu but perhaps Saddam Hussein circa the first gulf war is more fitting for the fate of the Libyan leader in the short term.
The resolution will stay in force and perhaps a trade embargo will follow, Gaddafi will regain his grip over the Libyan people and the West will bide their time until they can invade. Of course that strategy as history tells us has been an unmitigated disaster for Iraqis but has enabled the West to gain leverage in the region. That's what Obama et al want. They get to do all this under the guise of saying they are securing the safety of the Libyan people. The BBC is starting to report civilian deaths as a result of the air strikes against Libyan targets.
It is very possible that the UN Resolution will prolong the war in Libya. The Libyan rebels now not only have to worry about Gaddafi's forces but also they run the risk of getting killed by an air strike from their so called friends. There are also reports that people are hungry. Again think Iraq.
Libyans not joining the rebels or openly supporting Gaddafi will likely grow. Gaddafi's forces can be defeated as witnessed in the Toyota War with Chad. But then they were fighting another army from another country and not their own people. Unless America and the Europeans commit to a ground force then the Libyan rebels look likely headed to defeat.