"We have significantly degraded Gaddafi's war machine. And now we see results, the opposition has gained ground," Rasmussen told a news conference in the Slovak capital, Bratislava.
"I am confident that combination of strong military pressure and increased political pressure and support for the opposition will eventually lead to the collapse of the regime."
In time, I think he's right. But I also think that the combination of financial costs and loss of international support for the war effort as the war itself is seen as more of a cause of suffering than Khaddafi's checked forces will eventually lead to the collapse of the war effort. I just don't know which trend will eventually win out.
One nice thing about the Libya War is the demonstration that Western bombing isn't the automatic regime support mechanism that many in the West argue it is when a discussion of whether bombing Iran's nuclear infrastructure would help or not.
You've heard it before over the last decade or so that Iranian people who hate the mullah regime will rally around the flag if the mullah regime they hate is attacked by the West. I've questioned that assumption. Sure, it might happen. But why assume it when dissidents often welcome outside help?
So even if Khaddafi survives the Libya War because Western resolve is shakier than Libyan regime solidarity, the war will have defeated the idea that Western bombing actually saves a dictatorial regime by "tainting" the opposition to that regime.
