Reasonable minds can certainly disagree over the proper response of the United States and its allies in Libya. There are respectable differences of opinion over whether weapons should be supplied to the rebels, whether air power should be used in direct support of military advances by the insurgents and how much of the allied military power should be directly aimed at regime change as opposed to humanitarian goals.

Nevertheless, whatever anyone thinks of the “kinetic military action” (read war) in Libya, few would argue that the world would not be a better place if Moammar Qadaffi were out of power.

The paradox, however, is that the United States and many of its allies, while understandably reluctant to commit their full military power in Libya, do not seem to be considering a practical alternative - giving Qadaffi and his relatives safe passage to another country if he will just cede power.

In recent days, Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini, with the support of the governments of Spain and Turkey, has proposed letting Qadaffi be exiled. The position of the United States and Britain, however, seems to be that Qadaffi and his henchmen must be hauled off to the International Criminal Court in the Hague to face charges of violations of international human rights law.

While Qadaffi no doubt deserves this type of justice (if for no other reason than his alleged role in the crash of Pan Am Flight 103), insisting on a trial seems like a very wrongheaded strategy in the real world. The allies lack the will to oust Qadaffi militarily themselves, the rather ragtag rebel army may or may not have the ability to accomplish the task, and a threat of prosecution will make it much more likely that the dictator will wage a desperate, and potentially very bloody, last stand rather than move on.

Perhaps a better model than placing Qadaffi before the International Criminal Court was the negotiated ouster in 1986 of Filipino strongman Ferdinand Marcos.

While an anticommunist and a longtime ally of the United States, Marcos’s regime was often accused of corruption as well as human rights abuses. He declared martial law in the Philippines from l972-81. Opposition to Marcos began to rise in 1983, when a major political opponent, Benigno Aquino, was assassinated at Manila airport as he returned to the country.

By 1984, President Ronald Reagan was distancing the United States from the Philippine leader, as it was becoming increasingly clear that the opposition “People Power” movement, led by Corazon Aquino, widow of Marcos’s murdered opponent, had broad popular support. This was especially true after an election called by Marcos in late 1985, in which Marcos supposedly defeated Ms. Aquino, was widely condemned as fraudulent.

The United States largely orchestrated Marcos’s peaceful departure. In January, 1986, a United States senator and friend of President Reagan, Paul Laxalt, bluntly warned the strongman that his days were numbered. Safe passage was arranged to Hawaii for Marcos, who was ailing at the time. Marcos died in Hawaii three years later. An orderly transition of power occurred, and Corazon Aquino was sworn in as Philippine president a few days later.

Before we become mired in months (or more) of Libyan conflict, it seems that consideration should be given to the idea floated by Italy’s Mr. Frattini of commencing negotiations with Qaddafi toward a safe passage exile. As with Marcos, it may not be particularly fair that Qadaffi leaves without facing the consequences of his regime, but this may be the best possible option under the circumstances.