As the person above said, who is the U.S. to make all decisions concerning the future of these states? To a certain degree it does need to be dealt with purely by the country, yet at the same time, sometimes international intervention is necessary. This does NOT mean, the US, however. The UN could make strong sanctions against them.

Typically, the US turned against its allies and is now trying to control them. Hopefully this situation does not take a nasty turn down the Iraq road.

This Egyptian-Libyan double-standard is, of course, nothing new for the U.S. It's just that today, it's not just the eggheads, a few marginalized journalists, and the citizenry of America's vassal states who are aware of the way America has been operating in the world since at least the end of WWII. Americans in increasing numbers are waking up to this kind of behaviour. Now the task is to get Americans to trace that behaviour back in American history.

Mubarak was invited by Saudi Arabia but he refused to leave Egypt. He and his family (wife and sons) were aware of the political and financial corruption they caused in the past three decades while in power. So we should not blame anybody for his fate. And the U.S. actually advised Mubarak to leave early on but he refused till the last minutes when protesters surrounded his Palace in Cairo.

Mubarak is not a better man than Kaddafi. For all we know, his army refused to help him repress the protests. Hundreds were killed during the protests that finally ousted Mubarak. He left not out of compassion, but because he did not want to be executed like Ceausescu. There is no lesson to be learned here.

He saw the writing on the wall, and agreed to down tools rather than persist with a bloody and futile ground campaign against NATO.

His reward? Well, he forgot to include a paragraph in his agreement with the West that they wouldn't arrest and try him in the Hague, which is where he spent his dying days.

Far better to wage war against the West until they lose all enthusiasm for pursuing you, and indeed come to embrace you as some kind of Byronic hero, much like Geronimo or Ho Chi Minh.

There has been plenty of double standards in history. We all hate it when we spot it, but such is the nature of politics in the world.

Though to be fair the circumstances around Qaddafi and Mubarak do differ quite greatly. Mubarak's departure was greatly hastened by his military turning against him or at very least refusing to just take orders for him. Qaddafi on the other hand kept his military weak and inept for the most part. So when his military either refused to listen to him or outright rebelled it meant very little to him. A majority of the fighting that is being done is by mercenary units and by the few army units he kept strong and more importantly units he kept very loyal to him as a person and not to the state of Libya.

If anything the lesson to be taken from this is to be mindful of the people you decide to give guns to. Make your military mimic Western militaries where loyalty to the state and people are emphasized and you might wind up like Mubarak. Organize your military like Qaddafi did and/or keep mercenaries close at hand and you might get to run away and live out the rest of your life in comfort. In short; give guns to people who are loyal to you and only to the people or the notion of the state, and more importantly, must be willing to gun down civilians and stick around when bombs start dropping.

Mubarak's improper dealings range from giving top officials and tycoons preferential treatment in land contracts, to selling state industries at a fraction of their value during Egypt's privatization process since the early 1990s, and handing out other perks that let his allies build their wealth exponentially. His right place is jail now!

Since Gen Augusto Pinochet became the first high profile dictator-tyrant-mass murderer of his own people to have to flee and hole up from international justice, it just hasn't been the same for Melosovic, Taylor, Saddam and others. The custom, policy and practice is for the governing elites of nation states - to include Western democracies - to offer asylum to ousted tyrants and the matter is forgotten. Reliably, however, Mubarek is said to have declined Saudi Arabia in its offer to provide shelter. Gadhafi has chosen the road of Saddam and probably at this point is literally in his own spiderhole.

It just ain't the same anymore. It really isn't. We're locking 'em all up. For some you throw away the key, for others you bring out the yardarm. It varies according the the specifics and particulars of each case. Tyrants and other dictators everywhere see unmistakably that the times they're a changin'. Assad may face his day yet. Gadhafi knows he wouldn't long be ignored by war crimes tribunals and the ICC anywhere he goes outside of Lybia.

After the present spring storm passes, dictators in other places may have to consider different approaches to their reigns knowing that the business as usual class of dictators and tryants are presently and quickly becoming the 'ancien regime.'

It's too premature to say what lessons other dictators will learn. If the Libyan rebels start getting significant weapons and training, then, Gadaffi could end up with a bullet in his head. Other dictators will take note.

As always, this is a test of wills. The actions of the US, NATO, the West, etc are being watched to see their willingness to win decisively. If they appear cautious, then dictators will be inclined to think they can get away with excessive force.

as you say, when Gadhafi family might get the golden parachutes while Mubaraks wind up in prison. Hosni Mubarak earned a truth and reconciliation process rather than prison, I feel, for stepping down more or less peaceably.

Of course, none of my family was murdered or imprisoned by the Egyptian interior ministry, so who am I to say?

Finally, the Gadhafi's may be enjoying life on the Croatian Riviera for the rest of their lives, but Gadhafi supporters and the rebels will have to sit down sometime and hash out a plan for moving forward, and if famille Gadhafi gets a soft landing, it's a small price to pay.

It totally sticks in my craw though.

The United States policies regading the middle east have long been centered around bullying the population and placing some tyrannical despot into power who seems to preach the western ideals during there campaign. It is no coincidence that during the Arab Spring the world looks at the situaiton across the middle east and then looks at the Americans. The US has intervened at every turn and will do so with Qadafi. ALthough it does seem slightly odd to search for Qaddafi's asylum and not Mubarak's but that boils down to the western media's spin on the internal conflicts within their prospective countries. The incident in Libya was pitched as War while Egypt large scale violent protests. It is really that simple.

(Never watch fox its not news its a dried out political soap box)

Every dictator worth his salt knows you arrange your haven before giving up power. I mean, this is Totalitarianism 101.

It was Mubarak's arrogance that he decided to stay in the country he brutalized. That always leads to death or prison.

This comment actually refers to Walt's post on top secret america on July 26 2010 that is closed for comment. The point I take issue with is:

"It isn't the volume of data that we collect that matters, it is the insight, knowledge, analytical ability, and good judgment of the people who are assessing it. I would rather have a relatively small number of very smart, well-trained, and independent-minded people working on critical intelligence problems than hundreds or thousands of inexperienced and poorly-trained 'analysts' who were mostly looking to make a buck."

I would like to point out that the large banks in the U.S. who make decisions about the U.S. economy tend to rely on analysis of large volumes of data to make those decisions, they seem to find the data useful. It is likely that foreign policy and military decisions are equally complicated (see NSA data center being built in Utah). For another example google manages some of the largest data centers in the world but has a relatively small work force, about 20k. Google's workforce has a reputation of being pretty smart, having 'good analytical ability' and they put that ability to use by automating the analysis of their vast data set. Basically it is important to differentiate between data and the workforce using the data. Other then that slight criticism I gotta say Walt rocks.

It is really a kind of irony how the international community has to behave toward despots and dictators. All the years the US and the EU know how Gaddafi and Mubarak treat their nations.But they ignored it because of own interests.And now they have to handle the big problems and it is almost impossible. But I would like to talk about more nice things like Balsamico. This "Balsamico" is a must for every good household.