edits May 15
(Some thoughts split off from elsewhere, perhaps to be added to later ....)
Consider NATO's approach to this "humanitarian crisis" in Libya - created by NATO member states or not. It's costing more lives in this "stalemate" than Gaddafi's unfettered repression likely would have, but it does have the opposite outcome from the alternative as for who runs Libya. Some distinction or other has the Dogs of War running in a pack over an obviously illegal and dishonest war of aggression on a state whose main crime might have been getting set up by CIA-type shenanigans, again. Demanding regime change as the only solution to this very fishy situation backs him into a corner, and ensures a longer fight, and we lose track on purpose of what we were supposed to be doing from the outset.
Obvious air support for the rebels as they seized cities (or is it the rebels are obviously NATO's ground troops?) is masked always as a simple measure to protect innocent civilians. An obvious assassination atempt that kills four innocent civilians, three of them under two years of age, was a simple part of the aforesaid mission, targeting command and control, and communications, intelligence, morale, the leader's sense of a future, whatever. It's all obvious, just too much so to bother explaining.
Doublespeak is what it's become. Hillary Clinton finally boiled it down May 5 in Rome:
“We have made it abundantly clear that the best way to protect civilians is for Qaddafi to [surrender in the civil war] and to leave power [however long it takes and however many civilians die in the interim]. This is the outcome we are seeking.” [source]