Because public perception matters in times of war. You might want to kill an enemy, but if the public believed that was a primary intention, there could be a backlash. A backlash in the middle east could mean (a) increased support for Gadaffi on the ground in Libya itself and (b) reduced support for your case for intervention from elsewhere in the Middle East. So you actually need to try kill your enemy but pretend you aren't trying to. What they probably actually ideally want to do is try capture him, so they can hand him to the opposition to deal with from a public perception point of view, that would be ideal, but it's also difficult.

Oh, and as I just learned, apparently assassinating a head of state is also 'illegal under international law'.

So what are we actually trying to do in Libya? Say what you want about the Iraq war, but our goals there were clear. If our goal was clearly stated as being to capture Klodhoppy and put him on trial, I might could get behind that. But that doesn't seem to be the goal. Apparently the goal is to aid some rebel group to do... something... but the group that we're supposed to be supporting has never been clearly identified, probably because it actually consists of a whole bunch of competing factions with no over-arching organization. If we were serious, we could provide/impose that organization. But I guess we're not that serious.

And that's because this is the type of warfare we always get (since Vietnam) when Democrats are running the show. We're always in a reactionary mode. We allow the enemy to take the offensive. We do nothing to try to limit or destroy the enemy's capability to wage war. Instead, we scold them and then just assume that they've learned their lesson, until the next time they misbehave and we're surprised again. The only thing worse than going to war is going to war and then doing a half-assed job of it.

This was the first news I read today, and my initial reaction is utter shame.

Because while Obama and the EUnuchs in NATO want him gone, they don't have the balls or integrity to say something like "Get out or die"; and Deity Forbid! they actually admit to what they're doing, someone might take offense.

Then you add in the possibility that they PUBLICLY want him gone, but considering all the deals and connections may privately want him to stay, maybe a strike on his house when they know he's gone to set up the scene?

At best it's 'war by committee and PR clowns'; at worst it's 'spend a bunch of money and lives to keep our preferred situation' of Qadaffy still in charge so the deals keep going.

Here's the problem with Libya, in a nutshell:

We don't want either side to win. But the world demanded that we "Do Something", so we did.

And its end goal is to lay waste to Libya so that nobody wins.

According to NATO's commander, they aren't targeting individuals, but rather saw the target as a command & control center. I'm inclined to believe this, NATO would have a big credibility problem if its commander lied. If you're an American, you might take some comfort that bomb was probably not dropped by a U.S. plane (last I heard NATO wasn't divulging that info.)

I think ambivalent is too weak a word. This is world class stupidity and will end badly for us.

We've wasted a lot of money, and earned a lot of hatred, for no objective at all. There was at least a credible case to be made for Iraq and Afghanistan. What can we possibly gain in Libya?

"At best it's 'war by committee and PR clowns'"

'war by committee' - apt description.