I've been increasingly impressed with the way he has made the case for a no-fly zone - knowing that it is an unpopular cause outside of the Arab world.
If the comments have anything to go by, this is not a popular opinion. Even if we disregard the anti-Cameron sentiment, the general feeling is that Cameron should leave well alone in Libya.
Primary in the debate is the subject of intervention in the affairs of another country. And so it should be. Star Trek is very clear about this: It is the Prime Directive.
The Prime Directive, also known as Starfleet General Order 1, is one of Starfleet's most important binding principles about noninterference in another culture's internal affairs, natural development and progression. The Prime Directive forbids Starfleet officers from interfering with the social order of any planet. (TNG: "Half a Life") Violation of the Prime Directive is generally considered a court martial offense followed by severe punishment unless sufficient justification can be made for the violation. Even though there have been incidences where Starfleet personnel have decided on strong ethical grounds to ignore the Prime Directive, on the whole it is believed to do a lot more good than harm. (TNG: "Justice", VOY: "Prime Factors")(Source: http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Prime_Directive )
Star Trek, or the people who wrote it, are right. It does not matter if Klingons are smelly, egregious people who eat disgusting food. You cannot go wading into intergalactic warfare just because Klingons are not like us.
The bit I like about the Prime Directive is that "Even though there have been incidences where Starfleet personnel have decided on strong ethical grounds to ignore the Prime Directive, on the whole it is believed to do a lot more good than harm." Yes, it does more good than harm. But not always.
On Earth, the same rule should apply. Since 1945, almost all instances of waging war on a sovereign state by those of another sovereign state have ended in disaster. It is not just that one state has assumed a specious case for hegemony, it is that the natural evolution of cultures has rarely benefited from armed Conquest.
There are obvious examples of this, such as Vietnam, which is possibly why Mr Obama is not chomping at the bit to join Cameron in flying in, all guns blazing. Either that or he just cannot make up his mind.
We in Britain are having an internal battle. Certain religio-cultural groups in this country are waging war on us. They will not win, because ultimately you cannot change the way people live by coercion. Even if these religio-cultural groups succeed by sheer weight of numbers, they will not subjugate an indigenous population. Given this, it is not unthinkable that in 50 or 70 years time - no more - Britain and perhaps Europe, may need the assistance of another continent to overthrow a tyranny.
If that happens, will the naysayers be moaning about intervention, or will they be pleading for help?