I answer the question over at Greg's place:
Conservative critics of President Obama’s mission in Libya have been loudly insisting that he pursue “regime change” as the mission’s chief goal, but Obama and his advisers have steadily rebuffed that demand. Yesterday, for instance, Obama stated that while “it is U.S. policy that Gaddafi needs to go,” the UN authority does not enable the U.S. to target Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi directly.
“When it comes to our military action, we are doing so in support of UN Security resolution 1973 that specifically talks about humanitarian efforts, and we are going to make sure we stick to that mandate,” Obama said.
So does the United States or its coalition partners have the authority under the resolution to kill or remove Gaddafi? The question has been the subject of contention for coalition members. British defense secretary Liam Fox stated that coalition members were trying to eliminate Gaddafi, but he was later contradicted by a top general. So what gives?
After speaking to a number of experts, the answer is: It depends on the circumstances.
The big weird irony here is that the administration is being far more squeamish about asserting the authority to kill someone they're willing to go to war against than it ever has been in asserting the authority to kill American citizens abroad suspected of terrorism. Isn't Gadhafi a more obvious and legitimate military target than Anwar al-Awlaki?
