The United States has shown real hypocrisy in its treatment of two Arab revolutions - Libya and Bahrain.
In Libya, the U.S. and its European allies have decided to go in with all guns blazing. With Bahrain it's a different story as the Americans refuse to lift a finger to evict Saudi Arabia after their invasion of that country.
Why this two faced strategy? Both countries (Bahrain and Libya) are repressive dictatorships. The peoples of both nations have risen up against their long time rulers and are fighting for their freedom on the streets. The rulers of these two nations have opted to take a repressive line in dealing with their respective peoples.
Yet, more pressure is being applied to Libya's Colonel Gaddafi than to the Bahraini Al Khalifa ruling family. There's a simple explanation for this - Gaddafi (despite his post-9/11 cuddling up to the West) has long been seen as an enemy of Western (read U.S. and Israeli interests) in the Middle East. Meanwhile the Al Khalifa clan have permitted the Americans to base their Central Command and Fifth Fleet headquarters inside the country, thus making the country strategically vital to U.S. imperialist interests.
Therefore, Gaddafi's loss wouldn't mean anything to the U.S. and its NATO allies. They would be able (through the use of airstrikes) to rid themselves of a foe who has now (conveniently) for them decided to take on his own people in a particularly vicious manner. The Americans, British and French, in opting to take the UN path, have decided to cloak their intervention in the veneer of international law. Through doing so, the West will effectively seek to take over the popular revolution that has swept Libya and, in the process, ensure that any new post-Gaddafi regime is fully compliant with Western interests.
Conversely, the loss of the Al-Khalifa clan in Bahrain would alarm the U.S. and its close ally Saudi Arabia. That's why the U.S. has not ordered its Fifth Fleet to fire on the Bahraini royal palace in support of the protesters on the streets who, as in Libya, are being fired at by government snipers. They haven't decided to turn their guns on the largely Saudi invasion force either. The U.S. needs both Bahrain and Saudi Arabia on its side in order to enjoy continued access to oil. And if that means continuing to back repressive monarchist regimes in both Gulf countries, then so be it. Another irony is that 21 years ago, the U.S. decided (under the cloak of UN authority also) to take on Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait. So why are the Americans not being as outspoken about Saudi Arabia's invasion of Bahrain? I remember that the Iraqis used the excuse in Kuwait that they were intervening at the 'invitation' of local revolutionaries who had overthrown the ruling family. This story was fictional as is the one about the Saudis intervening at the 'invitation' of their Bahraini royal brethren. Furthermore, I seek to question whether the Libyan opposition hasn't been infiltrated by Western intelligence agencies given that some opposition groups have called for NATO air strikes which is effectively another 'invitation' to the West to intervene in another Arab nation's internal affairs.
If the US, British and French wanted to be consistent, they should unhesitatingly support all the Arab peoples in their struggle for freedom but not directly intervene. By all means, if the people are being attacked by their national military forces, then they should be externally armed and trained to fight back. But that's as far as it should go. Instead, neo-imperialist strategic interests have driven the U.S. and their allies to treat the cases of Libya and Bahrain differently. And that is a real tragedy for both the Bahraini and Libyan peoples in the midst of their respective struggles.
