Firstly I don’t think this resolution is altruism in any sense of the word. There seems a misconception in most people’s minds that states are like people and they carry out acts out of compassion.
Nobody not France, nor Britain nor America is going out there out of compassion for the populace. It's a combination of commercial interest, the hope of political gains at home (Sarkozy and Cameron) and also I think the main issue with the European powers, is they need to be seen as able to project power and stabilise their borders after the debacle they had with Bosnia, and that's probably why they were the driving forces behind this move (the two strongest military forces in Europe in any case).
I dont think its the right to do, nor is it the right time to do it. My main problems with the no-fly zone are:
1. The air strikes will kill civilians. “Collateral damage” it’s already being stated as. Whats the difference between Gadaffis collateral damage and the France and Britain’s? Nothing, its both killings.
2. His ground forces are the real danger to the revolution, and the only way to effectively stop them is with putting in ground forces yourself, someone no is willing to do so effect of the no-fly zone will not be immediately felt.
3. The revolt is now permanently indebted to foreign powers. Which is different from what happened with Tunisia and Egypt, will the interests of the Libyans be put above the commercial interests of foreigner states? Now, I doubt that to be the case. The debt will be called if Gadaffi falls.
Gadaffi is a psycho, we all know that. However other states should not be militarily involving itself in an internal revolution. It is not a humanitarian crisis yet. So the UN shouldn’t be involved yet. Saleh in Yemen is a psychos as well, so is the Al-assad family in Syria as are the gulf royalty. Is no one going to intervene to help the protests in Bahrain or the killings in Yemen? Will we see the UN militarily taking sides in the Ivory Coast stand off? The problem with supporting an armed uprising against a state no matter how brutal that state is, that it sets a moral precedent to do it in other countries as well, not only when commercial interests regarding oil are threatened.
In a completely Machiavellian sense, while I fully support the revolution if it fails, so be it. Revolts have come and gone. The Bahraini revolt is failing, no is saying a word. There will be more arrests, more torture, more killings in that secluded paradise. The same with the crazy situation in yemen, no is saying a word about the fall of Saleh and his authoritarian and corrupt regime. Gadaffi because of his reputation and his anti-western stance,
Another thing to note is, the revolt against Gadaffi is not a peaceful one. Its not the same as Egypt nor Tunisia. He is not shooting at people who are just walking down the streets like before, that side has already lost. He is shooting at people who are shooting back. When guns are picked up, both sides are equally reprehensible (i.e. I doubt the revolters are being kind to innocent civilian gadaffi supporters...yes he has them).
In any case, since it has already begun, I hope it helps the revolution against Gadaffi. And hopefully whatever succeeds him will help the people of Libya more.
Edit: Another problem i think is Saudi Arabia. Token support from its satellite states will not do. Egypt has its own problems to take care of, the other regional power are the Saudi’s. So having their support is crucial for any sort of arab legitimacy, but it seems they are not about to give it (naturally they do not want to set a precedent of overthrowing arab leaders). And how willing will the Saudi’s be to pick of up the oil slack if the libyan pipes are closed? The world’s economic recovery could hinge on that.
