Britain, France, and the United States are bombing targets in Libya. This military intervention follows a United Nations Security Council resolution which gives allowance to protect Libyan civilians using military force. From what I have read, it seems that bombing targets and installations from the air is pushing the limits of the resolution that was passed.
The Arab League was in favor of the UN's move to institute a no-fly zone over Libya, but the Arab League has expressed concern over how the UN resolution and the no-fly zone has, seemingly without hesitation, became a military bombing campaign.
I don't have any analysis to provide at this point as this isn't my area of expertise and I've been disconnected for several days while traveling across the Atlantic Ocean and adjusting to the 10-time difference. What I will provide is a series of links which have helped my understanding of the issues around non-intervention/intervention opinions based on historical, moral, and/or strategic rationale. Here are some of the articles I found useful, with a short description for those of you who may pick and choose amongst this list.
Richard Falk - Qaddafi, Moral Interventionism, Libya, and the Arab Revolutionary Moment
Richard Falk, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories and emeritus professor of international law at Princeton University, has a post which helpfully breaks down the non-interventionist and interventionist perspectives into three categories: realists, moral interventionists, moral and legal anti-interventionists.
Asli U. Bâli and Ziad Abu-Rish, Al Jazeera - The Drawbacks of Intervention in Libya
The title says it all and this is a brilliant article. These aren't pacifists calling for anti-intervention but are pragmatists (who happen to be experts in international law) looking at the history of Western (colonial) intervention while looking strategically at the proposed military intervention and are asking, "will this work?" They seem to think it won't work as effectively as other methods could.
Stephen Walt, Foreign Policy - What does the UNs decision mean for Libya? For the rest of the world?
Stephen Walt, foreign policy expert and co-author of the seminal The Israeli Lobby and US Foreign Policy, cautions that this action might not quickly cripple Qaddafi, he might hang on despite military intervention, as many other regimes have survived when faced with armed international pressure. He calls the air strikes and no-fly zone "the politico-military equivalent of a hail mary pass." That's a great line.
Robert Dreyfuss, The Nation - Obama's Women Advisers Pushed War Against Libya
The last paragraph of this article is sharp. It appears there is a civil war in Libya and there are not genocidal massacres taking place. So what gives France, U.S., and Britain (with the loose support of the United Arab Emirates) the right to intervene in an internal matter?
Abdel al-Bari Atwan, The Guardian - Relief will fade as we see the real impact of intervention in Libya
The intervening countries drafted a UN resolution because they are so concerned with the loss of civilian life? So why were 40 people killed in a drone attack in Pakistan, and why were Western leaders sitting on their hands while the Bahrain and Yemeni regimes are murdering pro-democracy protesters. Also, what are the long term effects of this action? Will Libya turn into another failed state as a result of this chosen form of intervention?