Options? We've got options?

Mark Landler and Thom Shanker have an article in The New York Times entitled U.S. Readies Military Options on Libya (as if):

The United States began moving warships toward Libya and froze $30 billion in the country’s assets on Monday as the administration declared all options on the table in its diplomatic, economic and military campaign to drive Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi from power.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the administration was conferring with allies about imposing a no-fly zone over Libya. Such a move would likely be carried out only under a mandate from the United Nations or NATO, but Mrs. Clinton’s blunt confirmation that it was under consideration was clearly intended to ratchet up the pressure on Colonel Qaddafi and his dwindling band of loyalists. “Qaddafi has lost the legitimacy to govern, and it is time for him to go without further violence or delay,” Mrs. Clinton told reporters after a special meeting of the United Nations Human Rights Council. “No option is off the table,” she said, adding “that of course includes a no-fly zone.”
But officials in Washington and elsewhere said that direct military action remained unlikely, and that the moves were designed as much as anything as a warning to Colonel Qaddafi and a show of support to the protesters seeking to overthrow his government.
Speaking in Geneva, Mrs. Clinton said the United States was sending two teams of aid workers to Libyan border regions with Tunisia and Egypt, where tens of thousands of refugees are massing in a desperate flight from Libya’s strife-torn cities. The administration has set aside $10 million for emergency relief.
As part of a potential military role in the humanitarian effort, Pentagon officials said that military aircraft and ships were being ordered to move into position closer to the Libyan coast. The Navy has an aircraft carrier strike group, equipped with ample planes and helicopters, and an amphibious landing vessel with Marines and helicopters in the nearby Red Sea.
“As part of our contingency planning to provide the president flexibility on a full range of options regarding Libya, we are repositioning forces in the region,” said Colonel David Lapan, a Pentagon spokesman.
The coordinated statements were part of a rapidly accelerating Western response to the bloody clashes between rebels and loyalists of Colonel Qaddafi. Administration officials said they were held back until Friday because of fears that the Libyan government might take its diplomats and other Americans there hostage.
Now, with most Americans safely out of the country, senior administration officials are demanding Colonel Qaddafi’s immediate resignation and ridiculing his claims that he enjoys the support of his people. Working with European allies, the administration has rolled out a battery of measures to seek to peel away senior officials and military commanders who remain loyal to the Libyan strongman.
In addition to a no-fly zone, designed to prevent the Libyan Air Force from attacking its citizens, options under review include using military transports to deliver food and medicine, or evacuating Libyans who want to leave the country. But there are clear risks to involving the military, officials said, especially if the effort is led by the United States.
Privately, American officials said any United States military presence could undermine the legitimacy of the Libyan revolt as an internal, grass-roots movement. Qaddafi supporters, and even those across the Arab world who do not like the dictator, could denounce American action as being only about oil.
A NATO operation could produce a similar backlash, given the bitter residue of European colonialism in North Africa. In meetings at NATO and the United Nations, European officials have resisted military action, officials said. “Should NATO get involved in a civil war to the south of the Mediterranean?” said Prime Minister François Fillon of France. “It is a question that at least merits some reflection before being launched.”
Egypt’s foreign minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, said his country would not endorse any foreign military intervention. An Egyptian official noted that the use of Egyptian forces was wholly a decision for the military, which controls the country.
Indeed, there is an element of gunboat diplomacy to the talk of military action. Besides reassuring protesters, a senior American official said, the naval vessels and warplanes could be used as a show of force to embolden members of Colonel Qaddafi’s military to turn on him. The announcement of American military planning could have an impact even without carrying out any operations, the official said.
The Treasury Department’s move against Colonel Qaddafi’s wealth was more concrete. Hours after President Obama signed an executive order on Friday freezing assets belonging to the Qaddafi family and other Libyan government entities, an unspecified number of American financial institutions cut off access to some $30 billion, including Libya’s oil-enriched sovereign wealth funds.
“This is the largest blocking under any sanctions program ever,” said David Cohen, the acting undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence. The $30 billion is separate from Libyan government money being blocked by European countries and banks under separate orders, he said, and it speaks to the vast holdings Colonel Qaddafi acquired in more than four decades in power.
Britain and Switzerland had already frozen Libyan assets, and the European Union announced further sanctions, including an embargo on the sales of arms and police equipment, and a visa ban for Libyan officials. Those measures go beyond the sanctions passed by the United Nations, though the Security Council also referred Colonel Qaddafi to the International Criminal Court for an investigation into possible war crimes.
In Washington, Mr. Obama met with the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, to reinforce the sense of international consensus. Afterward, the American ambassador to the United Nations, Susan E. Rice, delivered a blistering denunciation of Colonel Qaddafi from the White House briefing room.
Citing an interview the Libyan leader gave Monday to Christiane Amanpour of ABC News and others, Ms. Rice said, “When he can laugh in talking to American and international journalists while he is slaughtering his own people, it only underscores how unfit he is to lead and how disconnected he is from reality.”
Pentagon officials said the United States would seek an international mandate for action, most likely from the United Nations or NATO. There is no appetite for assigning ground troops to any mission, officials said.
But the scope and pacing of planning under way is a substantial increase from just a week ago, when officials said that the most likely military action would come from European countries like Italy or France.
Officials said the administration had realized that only the American military was equipped to lead across a range of options to halt the violence. “This has been a fast-moving scenario, with the violence really accelerating over recent days,” one Pentagon official said.

Rico asks who, even if he was willing to go, would accept Qaddafi as a refugee? (No, he can't come to Rico's house.)