The head of the British Royal Navy, Adm. Mark Stanhope, has warned that his fleet can't continue its role in the Libya conflict on its current scale beyond the end of the summer, unless the U.K. makes painful decisions to cut money in other areas to pay for the war. Does that mean Moammar Gadhafi can survive if he keeps a step ahead of NATO bombs for three more months? (Watch an MSNBC discussion about the standoff.)

Gadhafi might just outlast us: The Apache helicopters we sent will make life harder for Gadhafi's ground forces, says Sam Kiley at Sky News, but they "aren't a game changer." Some NATO partners are already running out of bombs. No wonder Gadhafi is ignoring offers of a peaceful exile. His "gamble on NATO losing its stomach for the fight" might just pay off.
"Is NATO's mission in Libya losing momentum?"

NATO will win, the only question is when: A little skepticism is understandable, says The Christian Science Monitor in an editorial, but "those involved in the NATO bombing campaign in Libya are increasingly confident that ... Moammar Gadhafi will be gone, one way or another." Sooner or later, the big question won't be whether Gadhafi will fall, but how to rebuild Libya after he's gone.
"Libya after Gadhafi: We need a plan"

The U.S. might have to finish the job: "The U.K. has been making irresponsible defense cuts for about 60 years," says Merv Benson at Prairie Pundit, to pay for a welfare state it can't afford. The British military is overstretched, and nowhere is that more apparent than in Libya. To get the job finished in Libya, the U.K. and the rest of the under-gunned European coalition might have to "rely on the U.S. to bail them out again."
"Brits say they cannot sustain Libya operation"