Certainly coalitions are made up of mixed interests.

Some think Russia and China are happy to go along, as they get great joy in watching us dig into another mess.

did any of Cole's comments affect you to the extent of  causing you to reconsider any of your positions?

Juan Cole makes a strong case in support of intervention in Libya. I imagine that it will reinforce the position of some, that it will sway some others to his conclusion, and it will give pause  and stimulate reflection among some who are strongly opposed to the intervention.  There is only one important paragraph dealing with one important argument with which I would argue. When he argues that oil is not a big factor in the decision, as opposed to my belief that it is an overwhelming factor, he does so with examples that have a larger explanatory context. That larger context, I believe, negates the conclusions he draws about the importance that stability in the oil market plays and of the importance of Libya in that market and the resulting importance those factors play in the decision to intervene. 
 
 First though, I would say that the rest of his argument could be accepted and intervention could be justified even if it is also the case that it would not happen minus access to Libya's oil being at risk.

 Another point to make before going on is that my arguments are premised on the concept of peak oil. I am not blindly ignorant enough to believe that markets are not manipulated and that unfair, and corrupt practices do not abound in the world of oil production, marketing, distribution and in gaining access to both proven and potential reserves. What I do believe is that oil is so expensive because it is so vital and it is in precariously short supply and that raises the stakes to the point that opportunity arrises for the  crooks to come in and manipulate and steal. It also creates the situation where some are willing and/or eager to deal with whoever controls a big supply of oil even if that person is an insane psychopath who uses the immense part of the oil profits he receives to crush any of his own people who threaten his power. Our country's decision makers as well as most of its population  has shown a willingness to overlook, or simply not pay enough attention to become outraged at the crimes of Gaddafi until it became impossible to ignore them.
 
 Below is a paragraph from Juan Cole's powerful statement with my critique.

 "Another argument is that the no-fly zone (and the no-drive zone) aimed at overthrowing Qaddafi not to protect his people from him but to open the way for US, British and French dominance of Libya’s oil wealth. This argument is bizarre. The US declined to do oil business with Libya in the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s, when it could have, because it had placed the country under boycott. It didn’t want access to that oil market,....."

That ignores the fact that Libya's oil was still available on the world market. Oil is the first on wikipedia's list of highly fungible commodities. Libyan oil had exactly the same importance to the world market, whatever that was, after the U.S. stopped buying it as it did before. That importance grows every day with every drop of oil the world burns.

"......which was repeatedly proffered to Washington by Qaddafi then. After Qaddafi came back in from the cold in the late 1990s (for the European Union) and after 2003 (for the US), sanctions were lifted and Western oil companies flocked into the country."

Qaddafi's position didn't change in 2003. The Bush administration finally accepted yes for the answer to the  demands it had had in place for years and to which Qadaffi had been saying yes for years. It was largely, IMO, because Bush needed to show that forceful intervention in Iraq had made other Dictators see the light and give up their WMD programs. Bush needed a public relations victory in the worst way. He got one, in the worst way.   

"US companies were well represented, along with BP and the Italian firm ENI. BP signed an expensive exploration contract with Qaddafi and cannot possibly have wanted its validity put into doubt by a revolution. There is no advantage to the oil sector of removing Qaddafi".

That could be the position taken by the oil sector in regards to a particular situation in a particular country they had invested in. They want to make money and they were making money in Libya as it was being ruled by Qadaffi. Oil corporations do not have a soul and they demonstrate that every second of every day, but the U.S. government has a strategic interest in maintaining reliable access to a stable oil market and may make different choices when decisions about a single country are based on worries about an entire region.

 "Indeed, a new government may be more difficult to deal with and may not honor Qaddafi’s commitments. There is no prospect of Western companies being allowed to own Libyan petroleum fields, which were nationalized long ago."

They would like to own the oil fields but will settle for profitable access. Oil companies have great influence with our government but I doubt they tried to affect the decision to intervene in this particular case. It wasn't their decision. If the U.S. is successful it will not hurt the oil companies situation.

 "Finally, it is not always in the interests of Big Oil to have more petroleum on the market, since that reduces the price and, potentially, company profits."


I see no possibility for any individual oil producing state to put enough oil onto the market such that it would significantly reduce the world price of oil. Further, there is no country which would have that incentive. The whole purpose of OPEC was to keep any one country from flooding the market with oil and so to keep the price stable and high. I don't think OPEC any longer needs to try to protect their price  by setting production quotas among its members when the U.S. government as well as world demand is asking them to increase production.

 "A war on Libya to get more and better contracts so as to lower the world price of petroleum makes no sense in a world where the bids were already being freely let, and where high prices were producing record profits."

A fear that world production of oil would fall even one percent below demand if Libya were to blow up and the resulting affects which  might include cascading economic problems could be sufficient motive to acknowledge  the evil nature of an old trading partner when that fool gets some big time internal opposition and decide to pick a side and hope to maintain enough influence to keep production humming along. They could hardly choose to support Qadaffi

 "I haven’t seen the war-for-oil argument made for Libya in a manner that makes any sense at all".

 I do not think Mr, Cole makes a strong rebuttal to the war for oil argument. 

Okay,

1) I'm more persuaded by having civilians in protests than by having armed rebels. The CNN video from Benghazi is impressive. 

2) I never assumed the "rebels are Al Qaeda" was accurate, though imagined it could be a small part of truth. The bigger truth is that these people are likely to be incompetent to run their own democratic and economically prosperous government, so someone is going to have to lend a lot of help. Not to say it shouldn't be done - likely much more rewarding with greater chance of success than Afghanistan - but it's not going to be a cakewalk.

3) In practical terms, the money that was being skimmed off by Qaddafi might pay for some of the effort, but never underestimate the amount of corruption that can balloon during a revolution, even one moving to democracy (and that corruption can sidetrack the democracy as well)

4) I'm much more persuaded about focusing on the ceasefire than the fan club for sponsoring the armed rebels. That doesn't even mean I don't support backing the rebels, but my main interest is peaceful civilian uprisings that overthrow dictatorships and move countries to democratic and relatively free market sustainable states. It's a test of character. Anyone can picke up a gun. Only responsible people can articulate a path to successful self-governance.

5) Cole's "who cares about precedent" is unnerving. The whole reason Libyan uprising is possible is because of precedent. We give hope by having models that people can strive for to get to greater freedoms, to enlist positive support. Not every country will have a Mandela or Gandhi, but if the roadmarks from the UN are clear: "Engage in this kind of responsible behavior and we're likely to support you", we can actively encourage successful transformations of government, and discourage the Sierra Leone "everybody grab a gun" model. We need positive behavior and positive institutions to integrate Africa and Mideast into larger positive structures that encourage and assist both ethical and prosperous behavior..

6) Did I mention that I'm more impressed actually that there are few professional soldiers in this? But I'm disturbed by the focus on military process, rather than what the path is to UN recognition of a new civilian government. As much time should be being spent identifying who's the class of leadership to take over and shepherd a fledgling democracy as how to arm rebels. That the EU politicians and military advisors don't know who the dissident leadership might be 1 1/2 months in is a major failure. Part of it is from a security vetting aspect - we DO need to know who we're supporting, and there are limits to which people can be palatable. Part is from timelines and practical steps - parallel to bombing, since we've already stepped into this, we need to be walking them towards self-governance and effective international alliance.

7) To respond to ArtAppraiser, I understand that there are lots of arbitrary lines drawn in the desert, and spitting up an artificially formed nation state makes me no nevermind. *EXCEPT* that encouraging people to spin off breakway republics without having an international way of dealing with them, and helping ensure they can survive just invites civilian atrocity, more refugee situations, and suffering on a grand scale. Or it means we'll be babysitting for decades, like Bosnia and Kosovo.

8) Much care is needed with the media - their main job is to sell ads and attract audience, not necessarily to get the story right. It's advantageous of them to build up an exciting story even if it doesn't fit the facts. The press is a sucker for access. Just because there's a story assuring great success doesn't mean the reporter hasn't jumped the shark, caught up in wishful thinking from the spirit of the times, or just spinning thread to attract viewers.