To the shores of Tripoli ...

NATO's foray into Libya prevented massacres in Misrata and Benghazi, but what is the alliance supposed to do now?

Canadian CF-18s have been dropping bombs on Libya for a month now, but little has changed on the ground as Moammar Gadhafi battles the rebels to what looks more like a stalemate each day. Barry Cooper writes in the Calgary Herald that the NATO mission's inability to oust Gadhafi stems from its ill-defined rules of engagement. “Our unwillingness to inflict civilian casualties, however reasonable it seems, also prolongs the killing by both sides,” says Cooper. “Instead of overwhelming force followed by a trial of Gadhafi at The Hague, we have the casual application of insufficient force leading to an extended and inconclusive conflict.”

Britain has been among the most vocal supporters of regime change, and today sent 10 military advisers to assist the rebels. The Guardian's Simon Tisdall points to this as a sign of “mission creep," whereby a limited engagement slowly takes on much broader ambitions. “It's worth recalling that UN Security Council resolution 1973, passed last month, does not authorize member states to support the rebels, to defend armed groups, or to oust Gadhafi,” writes Tisdall. “Nor does it authorize an Iraq-style ground invasion or military occupation, in any shape or form, size or scale. But in reality, much of this is now happening, willy-nilly.” Mission creep, most often linked to the Vietnam War, seems to have found a champion in the 21st century.

And that prospect of sending in ground troops is looking like the last option for ousting an increasingly entrenched Gadhafi, writes Michael Hirsh in the National Journal. “If he is committed to surviving in blood, as he seems to be now, then minus a new threat from [Gadhafi's] declared foes – NATO and Washington – we may be facing a conflict even more drawn-out than Kosovo was,” says Hirsh. NATO aircraft aren't designed to attack snipers holed up in apartment buildings, and with Barack Obama stating that regime change is the ultimate goal, few other avenues remain. To protect both his and NATO's credibility, Hirsh questions if Obama might just be forced into doing specifically what he ruled out at the beginning of the campaign.