Great post that gives context to the running news coverage story that is on Libya, even if the main stream media don't tell their audience the connection. At this stage of the story, when the overthrow of Gadaffi is done, they compartmentalise all aspects of the story: Libyan groups opposed to Gadaffi during the "Arab spring-uprising" were armed by western governments. There are slave markets in Libya. Libya has no functioning central government, but rivalling centres of power. Sarkozy is in legal trouble. South Africa's former president Thabo Mbeki says there's no grounds for a pan-African currency. And the list goes on. They don't report on the connections between these elements, who made the decisions that lead up to the intervention and why. And wether anyone has any reaponsibility for the fallout is not examined; the intervention was a political decision made without personal considerations by those involved, and the following carnage was incidental and could not be avoided. Arms were brought from Libya to groups in the wider region, and may have played a role in the kidnapping of the shoolgirls in Nigeria, or the attack on the industrial facility in In Amenas, Algeria, two among many atrocities. But that's just another unintended consequence, so let's not examine possible links. And who could question that France intervened to avoid the killing of civilians. No need to look at what other "benefits" they were looking for.