Ross Douthat, the conservative guy at the New York Times has a column about how the Libya airstrikes is textbook liberal warfare (here), chocked full of advantages and disadvantages.
It was really informative because I always thought liberals fought wars with armies of lawyers and liberal judges. It turns out they also like to wait until the U.N. signs their permission slip to lob tomahawk missiles from behind the skirts of the French (AKA in France as applying for citizenship).
Nobody disputes that Gadaffi is a bad bad guy, and what he's doing is as Obama put it, unacceptable. However, people are uneasy about this because it seems less like an effort to oust Gadaffi and more like Obama is just trying to answer the age old question of what a dog would do if it finally caught the car it was chasing.
That's Obama vs. Gadaffi in a nutshell. Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan (conflicts that were actually relevant to American interests), the mission objectives were clear as mud. People understand even less why our military is getting involved in Libya, or what the goal line even looks like.
What's worse is Obama is treating this like it was the fight over ObamaCare all over again. He seemingly had moments to make a decision, and he took his time to the tune of days and weeks on this.
If he wants to flex American muscle when time is truly of the essence he should pretend that he's choosing ice cream flavors that have just been removed from the freezer and wont go back in until he picks one...
Like the fate of the free world depends on it. Then again I'm just playing armchair general. Unlike the previous two years I'm sure Obama knows exactly what he's doing here.