Originally Posted by NW Ponderer
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.
Almost all military intervention is almost always economically motivated. Ideology is always the "story" used to justify military intervention to the plebe. I see no difference between one perpetrator or the other.
I also don't think you'll find any piece of journalism that is not politically biased.

"The liberals can understand everything but people who don't understand them."
Lenny Bruce

"The cleverest of all, in my opinion, is the man who calls himself a fool at least once a month."
Dostoevsky