Not necessarily 3 years ago, but in a time when we had better intel capabilities worldwide, we'd have had some idea of potential replacements for Gaddafi. Also, on a larger scale, we'd have better foreseen what's occurring now in North Africa and the ME. Our current director of national intelligence takes his cues from media reports.
What would you have us do to keep Gadaffi in power?
Not looking to take action to keep him in power... nor to push him out.
What pro-Western future leaders exist in Libya?
Pose that question to our CIA. Effective intel would've identified someone long before now.
My point is... before we go all gleeful over the fall of Ghaddafi, we'd better have a wary eye on what's waiting in the shadows to replace him.
I think you vastly overestimate our ability to do anything...Besides this isn’t Iraq where we freed the people using force. Its a popular people’s movement by all accounts (a normal sign when you see civilians fighting an army), and those things are pretty much impossible to control. Meddling only makes people madder sometimes...
While it is naive to be feel all warm and fuzzy about the freedom movements and expect wonderful democracies(because the chances of an islamofascist regime is high), its considerably more naive (albeit in a different sense) to think we can “establish” a pro-Western leader when we feel like. One can control military led revolutions to some extent, where a relatively small number of people take power but popular people’s movements? I doubt it...
Besides, Mubarak and Ben-Ali were “pro-western” dictators.....What exactly were our chances of staving those off? I’d say, pretty non-existent.