One fact, however, which does not need my TV-acquired political expertise is, that the impetus for going to war against Libya (also known under the euphemism of “intervention to save the Libyan people from their tyrant, Gadaffi) came from President Sarkozy.
Where my new-found political nous comes into play is in my unashamedly home-made interpretation of his motives and there are three, in my notsohumble opinion:
Firstly Sarkozy's popularity is down down down - and it’s only a year or so to the next presidential elections. He, like many politicians believes the furphy that going to war makes him popular with the “people”.
Secondly, he is still embarrassed by his failure to immediately aligning himself (and his government) with the winning side in the recent “spontaneous (ha!) Revolution” in Tunisia and he wanted to play the strong man.
Thirdly, he is probably even more embarrassed for having kissed Gaddaffi’s derrière and allowed the grotesque Colonel to put up his tent in the Elysee gardens, yes literally his TENT, during his recent “triumphalist” visit to Paris.
And no, there is no 4th motivation for starting this stupid stupid stupid and dangerous war, like for example “hatred of oppression”.
Here is what Peter Hitchens (brother of the other Hitchens?) wrote about that one:
"...If our guiding principle is a hatred of oppression, then we don't apply it as a principle. In which case it isn't one. We don't intervene in the long term in China, Zimbabwe, North Korea (China massacred its; 'own' people in Tiananmen Square and those responsible are still in charge). We haven't intervened in Iran despite the grisly street massacres last year. We didn't intervene in the short term when Syria shelled its own people in their homes in the city of Hama. We aren't intervening against the Bahraini and Yemeni governments, both of which have been treating their 'own people' with severe violence..."