We had kind of made our peace with him since he came clean on his WMD's and coporated with all of our inspections, but I wouldn't characterize him as "our" guy. Nor do I think oil, which I don't beleive we get from that country, had any impact on our decision making. For the UK and France it's a different story, but if they can trick us into doing their dirty work..
Syria and Iran on the other hand, are both avowed enemies and are real threats. We seem to be OK with Syria slaughtering their people on a daily basis. That's why I can't make real sense of the administration's policy. How the hell is Libya more important to us than Syria is? If there is some overall marching plan, I don't see it.
There is no overall marching plan. There hasn't been for decades. We base our foreign policy on the current political situation and then we change it.
North Africa and the Middle East are a mess. The countries are artificial. They were formed through European colonization and are held together only by brutal dictatorship. When these dictatorships collapse, they fracture along ethnic and tribal lines.
Our problem is that we have to choose our battles, as we can't afford to fight everywhere. With our ground troops still engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq, and since our European allies seem to be willing to take the lead, Libya seems to be the battle of choice.
I think we hope that Syria and Yemen will sort themselves out, as did Egypt. In the case if Syria, Israeli intervention may become a factor.
As for Iran, I think we are delaying an inevitable confrontation.
And if anyone thinks that Pakistan is anything more than an Ally of Convenience, they are deluding themselves...
