More than 12 hours after Muammar Qaddafi's 90-minute mix of threat, bluster, and poetry, spiced with a dash of the irrational, the situation in Libya is no closer to resolution.
Yet there is some clarity emerging from the incoherence. Qaddafi's message, like that of former Presidents Ben Ali (Tunisia) and Mubarak (Egypt) before him, was that he would die in the country which he had led for decades. Unlike those two, however, Qaddafi was pointing to a determination that he would do so bloodily, both for his demise and as many Libyans --- enemies, of course, twisted by foreign hands --- that he could take with him.
What was missed as Qaddafi confused and almost mesmerised with his appearance, however, was the emerging race to the end. Which happens first: the leader unleashing bloody wrath or a coup that ends Qaddafi's life as well as his 42-year rule?
The defection of the Minister of Interior --- Qaddafi's companion in the 1969 Revolution and close friend --- brought this into focus. Major General Abdul Fattah Younis al Obeidi resigned all his posts and urged all armed forces to join the people of the "February 17 Revolution".
That is a resignation beyond that of the Libyan ministers and diplomats who have already fled Qaddafi's camp. Monday's aerial strikes, which were initially thought to be aimed at decimating protesters, were primarily carried out upon Libya's own military facilities. Although the situation is still not Air Force v. Army --- without some ground forces, Qaddafi could not remain --- this is a tightening military circle.
The Battle of Tripoli is taking shape. Qaddafi said, just before this uprising, that he did not want to be the victim of the Internet and Kleenex. Whether or not there is hidden wisdom in his statement, he is wrong.
It is the guns of his former allies that he should be fearing.