The article - which is short, and written to be a leaflet, so it covers only a few things - does not say that the intervention will 'avert the defeat of the rebellion'. In fact it says "There is no guarantee that Western intervention will even succeed in its short-term aim of halting Qaddafi’s advance."
What consequences will the intervention have 'within Libya society? Well, neither of us know, exactly. Do we. It may mean a prolonged civil war, yes. Hopefully not, and for sure the Western powers are anxious to avoid it.
Ergo what? There was - and could still be - an immediate issue of what was going to happen to Benghazi. Why do so many people on the left find it so hard even actually to address this question? Your contribution, David, is actually even more evasive than most on this issue. What are you saying? All this article says is that we should not mobilise to try to prevent the mlitary intervention. What *else* we do, in light of what happens as events unfold, is something intelligent people can work out.
But right now it seems at least the *immediate* disaster *has* been averted. I for one am pretty glad about that, because whatever the longer-term consequences of intervention might be (and whatever we might need to oppose), for sure, a bloody defeat in Benghazi would have had - will still have - extremely bad consequences throughout the region.