It's a hard rain's a-gonna fall.

So Bammy's got his war, or military intervention, or whatever the kids are calling it these days. Cue CNN, and its Breaking News and shiny round tables and touchscreen maps, and the mandatory news report about how happy being bombed is making the Libyan people. Cue also the legions of America-bashers who bring out terms like 'white man's burden' and 'imperialist dogs'. For my part, I put the Bob Dylan discography on and try to decide which way I stand.

What makes this war different from, say, Iraq, is that there would most certainly have been violence had the Allies - I love how they're still using that term - had not intervened, and civilians would still have died. Mass atrocities would have been reported once Gaddafi's forces retook Benghazi and the West would have been criticised for inaction. #Rwanda would have Trended on Twitter. It's not easy being the West. People expect you to do things.

To his credit, Obama's said all the right things and made sure he has the world - or at least the part that matters - behind him. The US has beautifully played the reluctant leader, making sure other countries commit to the action and that they're invited by all the right people to bomb Libya. He's made it hard to criticise the action. A unanimous SC Resolution carries a lot of weight in this world.

The problem, however, lies not in the execution but in the premise behind military action. What is being stated very often as the unstated goal for the war is regime change in Libya. OK, they've not exactly been subtle about it, with Obama going on record saying that Gaddafi must go. The SC mandate is for protection of civilians only, and the Allies have no business removing sovereign leaders, no matter how vague their titles might be.

For all the ideals of democracy and Egypt and free love that this revolt is based on, it is essentially a civil war between two sons of Gaddafi sorting out who takes over when the old geezer kicks the bucket: a more violent Azhagiri v Stalin. Of course, the people got involved, as they would in heady times like these, and bullets were fired and innocent people died, which prompted more violence. And now the global powers have sensed weakness and chosen sides and upgraded it into a war a la CNN, ignoring similar situations throughout the rest of the Middle East and Cote d'Ivoire, which the global narrative has conveniently forgotten.

So, where do I finally stand? I'm still unsure. It would be naive of me to not expect the West to look after their own interests as they decide what to do. For all the rants it inspires, this is a reality of international diplomacy. And it is in their interest that an unreliable dictator like Gaddafi is replaced by a more reliably ingratiating one. It is also a reality of international diplomacy that as long as they do it outside primetime television, a dictator can kill as many innocent civilians he wants without fear of repercussions. Case in point: Laurent Gbagbo in the aforementioned Cote d'Ivoire, who has in the last few months rigged an election and killed hundreds of people - offences that cost Hosni Mubarak his job, and looks increasingly certain to lose Muammar Gaddafi his - and has received little more than a slap on the wrist and threats from military heavyweights like Burkina Faso. It's a depressing situation, but it is reality. And no amount of ranting is going to do anything about it.