As the Libya situation leads to the next (still unknown) situation, to which I contend Libya will be but a footnote, I think that any conventional understanding of where we are and what we face will be of not much use.
Obama wants to take us down to what he imagines is the historical bedrock of class struggle and to get there he’s anxious to collapse the infrastructure of “bourgeois principles” (i.e., the world as we know it).
So, any optimism about this Libya moment working to Obama’s disadvantage is likely to pass just as Libya passes on to the next thing, which will be much bigger and much worse. You have to look at the destruction he has wrought in his first two years, and it’s considerable, and watch him quadruple that wherever he can. It’s not an accident that he’s got himself his own war.
Obama is a narcissistic revolutionary who sees himself as now in charge of the revolution. If I had to choose someone from among his predecessors to compare him to, it would be Mao. It wasn’t a coincidence that he had a person in his inner circle during his early months in the White House — Anita Dunn, his first communications director (her husband, Robert Bauer, is now White House counsel) — who expressed her admiration for Mao at an event she probably believed would never be reported on (the White House would later claim she was only joking, not something you could believe if you saw the video). I would bet that Obama shares her admiration and more.
Recall that during his first two years Obama condoned, and participated in, unrelenting attacks on his critics, especially ordinary Americans, particularly those in the Tea Party movement, as racists (on the basis that his critics were critical because he is black, a claim for which there was little evidence). But if you substitute counterrevolutionary for racist, it starts to make sense. (Identity politics is the horizontal axis of class struggle, while attacks on the wealthy are on the traditional vertical axis.)