Yes, what ever may be said, Libya's Gaddafi doesn't have a long time to remain as the leader of the country. Effectively, he is not the leader anymore. Its pathetic that he still doesn't seem to fathom the reality.
The protests is Arabia were seen as an anti-Western rising by some, simply because except Libya, all the countries where mass protests were held were pro-Western. Well, it must be the case, isn't it? Almost all Arabian regimes were pro-Western except a few. Libya used to be anti-Western, but it can not be said that it was the case for the last 10 years. May be they were not on good terms with the USA. But who, one may ask, were in good terms with the USA during the younger Bush's presidency?
Whatever may be said, Gaddafi opened many channels towards Europe in the latter part of his reign. However, his unstable nature and the earlier reputation helped him to appear as anti-Western. Gaddafi was not anti-Western in the true sense in the last few years. He was and is a unique political animal. It can only be said that Gaddafi was 'pro-Gaddafi'.
This does not mean that the West may not have had a hand in the Libyan uprising. They may have had a hand one way or the other. But, the 'people power' in Arabia as a whole is not directed by the West.
Its dangerous to be 'pro-Gaddafi' when the people in the streets and many governmental officers appear to be 'anti-Gaddafi' for whatever reason.