France is one of the biggest military powers in the world, and has one of the most glorious military histories in the world (as evidenced, if nothing else, by the fact they are the largest country in Western Europe, a status they did not simply luck into). They are, not to put too fine a point on it, some of the most well-practiced warmongers on Earth and were doing it centuries before the US was a gleam in Britain's eye (and are still doing so now in several conflicts around the globe, including Afghanistan and the Ivory Coast). As a personal favour, can we stop talking like it's 2003 and people are still calling them stupid shit because they didn't want to help the US invade Iraq? Pet peeve of mine.
In any case, all of this attitude of "we must do something!" is still dangerous at best. Gaddafi's regime, while undeniably loathesome, is not particularly any worse than staunch US allies the Saudis, who just loaned a big chunk of their (US-funded) military to Bahrain to crush dissent. This is not to say that a UN-sanctioned no-fly zone in Libya is necessarily a terrible idea... however, acting like this is some sort of moral responsibility the US (especially) must shoulder is to ignore the fact that it isn't, nobody really thinks it should be, and both Americans and Arabs are very leery of the US being militarily involved in yet another Arab Muslim state.
It could be this all turns well, and Gaddafi is overthrown (and the rebellion doesn't turn out to be just as bad as he is, and it isn't a military or theocratic dictatorship once the dust settles, and puppies and flowers and rainbows, etc.). If so, yay. But what if Gaddafi keeps winning? Even without his air power he has the larger, better-trained and equipped force and he has all the momentum at this point. So do the US and allied powers just accept it as a fait accompli, shrug their shoulders, and go home to vote on sanctions that won't hurt Gaddafi much but will starve a lot of Libyans? Sad to say, that's probably the best-case scenario if Gaddafi wins, because it strikes me as far more likely that it will be decided to throw good money after bad and try to support the rebels with an invasion. How bad an idea this is is probably hard to overstate.
In any case, all of this attitude of "we must do something!" is still dangerous at best. Gaddafi's regime, while undeniably loathesome, is not particularly any worse than staunch US allies the Saudis, who just loaned a big chunk of their (US-funded) military to Bahrain to crush dissent. This is not to say that a UN-sanctioned no-fly zone in Libya is necessarily a terrible idea... however, acting like this is some sort of moral responsibility the US (especially) must shoulder is to ignore the fact that it isn't, nobody really thinks it should be, and both Americans and Arabs are very leery of the US being militarily involved in yet another Arab Muslim state.
It could be this all turns well, and Gaddafi is overthrown (and the rebellion doesn't turn out to be just as bad as he is, and it isn't a military or theocratic dictatorship once the dust settles, and puppies and flowers and rainbows, etc.). If so, yay. But what if Gaddafi keeps winning? Even without his air power he has the larger, better-trained and equipped force and he has all the momentum at this point. So do the US and allied powers just accept it as a fait accompli, shrug their shoulders, and go home to vote on sanctions that won't hurt Gaddafi much but will starve a lot of Libyans? Sad to say, that's probably the best-case scenario if Gaddafi wins, because it strikes me as far more likely that it will be decided to throw good money after bad and try to support the rebels with an invasion. How bad an idea this is is probably hard to overstate.