I'm not sure what is more concerning, the trend towards having NATO/UN forces rush in to support rebels or the fact that most of the troops in the Middle East are from the same European countries that originally colonized these countries?
Neither the United States nor Europe can continue to to send troops into every country that has an opposition group that doesn't have a means of politically challenging the incumbent. I know, I know, guys like Gaddafi are "dictators" but most of these leaders have been in power for a long time. Forcing a sovereign leader out with military force, regardless of his particular style of leadership, is a recipe for disaster.
The United States more than any other country has a spectacularly bad record of supporting the wrong opposition group leader. History shows that often rebel leaders make equally poor rulers as they will spend a lot of time getting revenge for the sins of the former regime. You need only look to the US backing the former Shah of Iran and his use of his secret police, SAVAK, which led to the Tehran Embassy crisis, the ascendancy of the Ayatollah Khoemeni and the end of the Carter Administration.
In the meantime, the French seem hellbent to rekindle anti-colonial sentiments with their heavy handed involvement in the Ivory Coast. Another sovereign nation is invaded because a European nation finds their ruler unacceptable. You can spin this however you wish, the more important thing is how other African and Middle Eastern nations may view the French response.