eurogreen:

I don't believe they are doing it primarily for access to energy, because nothing the rebel leaders could promise now would be enforceable.

But that doesn't prevent voices from the ends of the political spectrum and the "global South", as well as Gaddafi, from claiming that this is all about the oil.

In the case of the UK, it could be trying scratch the Lockerbie itch, and so on...

So, in what may be my last act of "advising", I'll advise you to cut the jargon. -- My old PhD advisor, to me, 26/2/11

I don't believe they are doing it primarily for access to energy, because nothing the rebel leaders could promise now would be enforceable.

If anything, I think access to energy might explain the reluctance to act to some degree.  Gaddafi winning would likely be better for that anyway.  By going for the NFZ and airstrikes, we're pretty much guaranteeing that the oil fields are going to be offline for the foreseeable future.

Like Mig says, the argument will undoubtedly be made by Gaddafi and others, but in this case I don't think it's terribly convincing, particularly as the rebels asked us to do this and enjoy a lot more popularity in the Middle East/North Africa than Gaddafi.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

eurogreen:

Which reasons would those be?

The autocrats in the Arab League is going to sign off on this tomorrow as I understand. What are they being promised? A blind eye as they strike down their own rebellions?

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se