The president, Libya and all that jazz

This one is tough; I usually do not agree with our president's decisions, nor do I agree with his political ideas; however, in the case of Libya I can't blame him.
This is one of those cases when someone is right for the wrong reasons, but I can't say he's wrong just the same. Even Mr Gates warned about the significance of creating a no fly zone in that African nation as well as its implications and possible consequences.
It's sad to see Qaddafi regain inch by inch all the territory he had lost, but yet another front could prove too much for our staggering economy and could, in the long run, become another quagmire. What is worse: for all his cruelty and blood thirst, Qaddafi is still better than the likely alternative. Actually, one of the reasons for his making "peace" with the west and pay damages to the families of those killed in the Pan Am flight bombing was his fear of losing ground to the rising extremism in the region. Qaddafi is no walk in the park, but he seems to be religiously and ideologically opposed to Islamic radicalism, at least the brand Al Qaeda represents.
I know this is not politically correct, let alone popular, but perhaps due to my years in Communist Cuba I find it hard to believe that this sudden wave of urge for change in the Middle East and Northern Africa is solely the result of the new technologies. For all the spontaneous chants and the cries for freedom, which I applaud, there seems to be a bit more to it than meets the eye and it would be wise to know who's behind this before showing all our cards; it sounds cynical and too pragmatic, but hasn't it been the US policy for the last two centuries?
The president dreads to make decisions, that is one of his weaknesses; but a little cautiousness wouldn't hurt