History never loves a loser, especially in revolutions. They tend to appear mad and bad, deserving of their fate, after prolonging the agony needlessly. Such rulers tend to have overstayed their sanity, identifying the nation and the state with themselves. Just as they lose sight of power and its responsibilities, they distance themselves from reality. Remember the denials of the spokesman during the Iraq War: now listen to the sons of Gadhafy.
The West (and its shadow in the East) does not like a loser either. Gadhafy can no longer guarantee oil or gas, and the revolution has endangered all of the foreigners on Libyan soil. The revolution has ensured an ethnic and an ethic cleansing. As soon as none could be taken as human shields or hostages, the sanctions were applied. Gadhafy did not help his own cause with the appalling brutality that ensures his downfall will be written in his own blood.
The forces have acquired the sticking positions that tend to favour civil war: an area of rebellion, now heading for the capital, plus loyalist obstacles like the port of Sirte.Does this mean that we are in for a long haul?
As I wrote earlier, such upheavals tend to radicalise if the initial demands for having aspirations are not met. Ghannouchi of Tunisia, a hold-over of the previous regime, fell on his sword tonight.