The discussion in the original post is itself misguided, and informed more by political viewpoint than factual accuracy. While I generally agree that military intervention always has unintended consequences, almost always bad, there are some naive assumptions that inform the piece from the beginning. In the introduction Mr. Gonzales states, " Islamist militants opposed to the French air strikes in neighboring Mali had seized the gas facility near the Libyan border on Wednesday." As with many such pronouncements, the speaker uncritically accepts the post hoc justifications for an action by the perpetrators, when they are clearly belied by the circumstances. This is a criminal gang, pure and simple, using a figleaf of ideology to excuse their criminal enterprise. It's a money-making endeavor.

A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich