Libya, Democrats and Clear Goals.

Remember when Democrats insisted than an American intervention had to have clear goals and timetables?

But now with the Democrats in charge, there's a lot of confusion as to what exactly are the objectives in Libya. Obama is not making it any better with his fence straddling and confused pronouncements that first Qaddafi must go and then pronouncing that the current mission is limited to protecting civilians.

Of course in a civil war that gets kinda hazy, especially as to which civillians you're supposed to protect, as this interesting interview with General Carter Ham shows.

But don't worry Sen levin assures us it will be a limited mission.

Levin: U.S. military intervention in Libya 'a limited mission'

President Barack Obama "has a military operation with a very clear mission," Levin said in an appearance on NBC's Meet the Press. "… No boots on the ground."

So the clear mission is to make sure no American infantry get involved? How's that for an intervention strategy?

The Detroit News:

One of the more vocal skeptics in Congress, Sen. Richard Lugar, said he worries that the U.S. may have entered a conflict with unclear goals.

"We really have not discovered who it is in Libya that we are trying to support," the Indiana Republican said on CBS' "Face the Nation." "Obviously the people that are against Gadhafi, but who? In eastern Libya, for example, a huge number of people went off to help the Iraqis against the United States in a war that still is winding down."

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Sunday that the U.S. intends to take a back seat soon.

"After the air is cleared of any threat there is going to be a hand off to our allies and this mission will then be carried on by French, by British and by Arab countries, and that's very important," Levin said.

So we're putting in a limited appearance and then handing Libya over to its (albiet briefly) colonial masters? Sounds promising.

What could possibly go wrong?