As far as the question, the reason for intervention in Libya does seem to keep spreading. I don't see how NATO can be at all these places in the ME who are having unrest.
So far though, I don't see the outright (outspoken) contempt for the lives of those protesting in other countries in which Qaddafi displayed from the beginning of the protest in Libya with threats of worse to come. Also, at least the other leaders paid lip service to reforms and in the case of Egypt and Tunisia, stepped down.
Qaddafi said the protesters were rats deserving of death at the very beginning and started to come down aggressively on the protesters which prompted them to fight back into what is now termed a civil war. These are not seasoned fighters, but just ordinary people in Libya protesting who had to take up arms to try and defend themselves from being slaughtered into what could have very well turned into a massacre.
However, now it seems that Syria is using tanks and armored vehicles against protesters in a preventive measure which does escalate what is happening there. So, it does beg the question, what about the rest of the countries in the ME who are under fire from their governments?
Syrian tanks and troops move into Deraa
As for Libya, since NATO did start this (I believe rightly) they should finish it, successfully and get rid of Qaddafi and his regime and then get out and let the people of Libya decide what to do next. I think they have stepped up the efforts.
Gaddafi compound hit in Nato attack