I don't really want to get into a debate whether the Libyan conflict is right or wrong. I do, however, want to clear up a common misconception surrounding the morality of certain tactics.
For some reason, we've decided that killing Gaddafi outright would be in poor taste. Our goal shouldn't be "regime change," it should be "protecting civilians." And that means not assassinating Libya's leader, but instead, going for the more humane and measured response of just "targeting his military."
It is as if we see Gaddafi himself as the instrument of destruction, and our choice is to shoot him in the head, or aim carefully and shoot the sword from his hands.
Targeting only "his military" isn't humane. Gaddafi - unlike the US - doesn't have army of automated drones. His army consists of young men who have largely been brainwashed into fighting for him. These young men may be motivated by many ideas: they may believe they are fighting Osama bin Laden, or imperialism. They may be motivated by patriotism, or the common ideal of being a good soldier by following orders. These are not evil people. They have taken the side of their government in what can fairly be described at this point as a civil war. In their view, of course, it's an attempt to violently overthrow their government.
Killing these young men is pointless. It does not advance the cause of freedom. It does advance the military objectives of the rebel forces, who themselves might advance the cause of freedom. Maybe. We still don't know for sure.
Killing Gaddafi, and only Gaddafi, is likely within our military capabilities. If he really is the murderous thug he's being portrayed as in western media, why does he deserve to live more than the thousands of young Libyan men who's only crime is to choose the wrong side in a civil war? Killing Gaddafi would, at minimum, cause a serious disruption to his force's command and control function, which would help the rebel cause. At best, it might collapse it all together, as sometimes happens when a "cult of personality" authoritarian dictator dies.
Our "targeted air strikes" are targeting the wrong people. It isn't about being humane or restrained. The only way this makes sense is from the perspective of symbolism - that Gaddafi is being intentionally spared because we don't want the Lybian war (can we call it that, now?) to look like Iraq or Afghanistan. Style concerns are a terrible way to base military decisions, as Iraq should have shown us. And dehumanizing Libya's military into merely an extension of Gaddafi's power instead is disgusting, and in fact betrays the very idea that Gaddafi has lost his legitimacy. Libya's brothers, sons, and fathers in uniform (along with countless civilians) are dying in needlessly prolonged conflict, because we don't want to look like we haven't learned the lessons of Iraq. The irony is as thick as blood.