As Cameron commits apache helicopters to Libya, you have to wonder whether the economic investment that can be the only reason for this farcical activity is worth it.
America didn't think so, with Obama refusing to commit any further military equipment to the fighting in Libya.
So why is Cameron so hellbent on spending cash on it?
Like the banks, the argument is that the initial investment will reap rewards. But what rewards will be realised? At the moment the weather in Libya is looking distinctly like drizzle. A dissarrayed rebel force, a Gadaffi regime and somewhere in the middle some crude oil exports.
Cameron obviously thinks they will destroy Gaddafi, as he opens a bureau for the rebels in London, and perhaps has a profit margin promise if he succeeds.
But has he thought through what may happen if Gadaffi isn't destroyed? If the country divides and Gadaffi remains?
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device