³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

Commentators discuss the no-fly zone established over Libya. This follows the UN Security Council vote.

that the UN Security Council "hit the right target" by voting for the no-fly zone. He says it can protect rebels from atrocities by Libya's leader:

"There is little doubt that, in light of his 41-year tyranny and what he has said and done to repress and kill his opponents during the uprising, [Gaddafi] will commit atrocities against a large portion of the Libyan population if he prevails. His recent pledge to grant amnesty to rebels who disarm is laughable. The same is true if his regime merely survives, crippled but in control of much of Libya."

that the price of inaction would have been far too high:

"If we don't bomb Gaddafi's tanks, Europe is likely to face a wave of refugees and a new generation of jihadis...
Ìý
"If we don't stop the man who will become known as the Butcher of Benghazi, then we'll suffer for it. But paradoxically, I don't at all think that it would mean the end of the Arab Spring. A Gaddafi victory would be an enormous setback - but only compared with where we were a month ago. Compared with this time last year, we have still seen remarkable, wonderful changes, whose impact we haven't even begun to comprehend."

if the US and its allies are too late to help Libya:

"The belated US decision to support Anglo-French proposals for a Libyan no-fly zone seems no more than a cynical gesture.
Ìý
"Washington concedes that merely grounding the Tripoli regime's aircraft and helicopters may not change outcomes.
Ìý
"But the situation today is where it always was: once Muammer Gaddafi showed himself determined to fight, only direct ground intervention by the US and its allies would have enabled the ill-armed rebels to prevail."

Even before the announcement, that the US change of heart may have come too late to stop Muammer Gaddafi:

"Behind closed doors in western capitals, talk about support for the uprising has been making way for strategic planning about how to contain a reinstated Gaddafi regime.
Ìý
"The west is left in disarray. Once familiar positions on the merits or otherwise of intervention have been upended. Barack Obama has considered the legacy of Iraq and insisted that nothing could be done without the sanction of the UN Security Council. France's Nicolas Sarkozy has argued for shooting first and checking the legal fine print later. Britain has leaned more towards Paris than Washington.
Ìý
"Divisions within the European Union have been mirrored by temporising in Washington. Just about everywhere, collisions between the realism that prizes short-term stability and the enlightened self-interest that supports Arab democracy have been excruciatingly painful. Has the west got it right? Probably not. Were there any easy choices? Certainly not."

that a Bahrain rebellion is a bigger threat to the west:

"Saudi Arabia's support for the Gulf state risks drawing Iran into the conflict... Iran has responded to the Saudi intervention by cutting diplomatic ties with Bahrain and denouncing the reinforcements as "unacceptable". There is considerable concern within British security circles that the situation could spread into a wider conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia, with calamitous consequences for the West."

that the west still labours under the shadow of Iraq:

"Political constraints are now placed on Western action anywhere - especially in an Arab country, even when the cause might seem unimpeachably just...
Ìý
"It is a bitter irony that the anniversary of the start of the Iraq war should fall precisely this weekend. Eight years after the battles for Baghdad and Basra, the UN Security Council has given approval for an exclusion zone over another Arab land. The legacy of Iraq haunts every move. This much Barack Obama at least has recognised."