So now, in addition to ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq the United States and many of its allies are tangled up in yet another war – in Libya. The nation is the stronghold of murderous dictator Muammar Qaddafi, a sponsor of state terrorism who commanded the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103.

Through superb statecraft, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, successfully negotiated last week’s U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing the establishment of a “no-fly zone” over Libya to stop Qaddafi’s army of thugs and mercenaries from continuing their scorched earth and bloody massacre of the opposition who seeks his ouster from power, along with countless innocent civilians.

It is always risky to comment on a military conflict, especially at its early stages, but it is not too early to ask questions and express concerns about the implications and goals of the latest military engagement by the United States in another Middle East nation.

• The most crucial question that must be answered promptly and definitely is: How will the U.S. and its allies define “victory” in Libya? Can there be a true victory under any circumstances if Qaddafi remains in power, even if limited to the Greater Tripoli region?

Observers as diverse as Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security advisor under former President Jimmy Carter and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., insist that now that we are “in it” we absolutely must “win it,” and that means that Qaddafi must be definitively and permanently removed from power. If he manages to physically survive, he should be captured alive and delivered to the International Criminal Court in The Hague to stand trial for the Lockerbie bombing and for the war crimes he committed against his own people.

• Another question that comes to mind is whether everyone involved in the current military campaign in Libya is truly on the “same page”? From the flood of contradictory statements coming from President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Bob Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it appears that the Administration is “all over the ballpark” on the mission, its limits and its goals.

Secretary Clinton has made it clear that in her opinion there could be no claim of success in Libya if Qaddafi is allowed to remain in power. Yet Admiral Mullen on both “Face the Nation” and “Meet the Press” last Sunday, refused to rule out an outcome in which Qaddafi would remain in power.

Meanwhile Secretary Gates, just a fortnight ago, in a major policy speech, said that any future Secretary of Defense who would go into yet another armed conflict in the Middle East should, quoting General Douglas MacArthur on another conflict, “have his head examined.” Gates had been widely regarded as opposed to using force in Libya in the run-up to the imposition of the no-fly zone over last weekend.

President Obama himself had said repeatedly that “Qaddafi must go” in the days leading up to the conflict. If Obama means it, why are there so many contradictory voices emanating from his very own “Team of Rivals.”

• We must also ask how reliable are our coalition partners? Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Rice were able to achieve passage of the U.N. Security Council resolution and avoid a Russian or Chinese victory only after the 22-member League of Arab States had publicly called for the Western powers to impose a “no-fly zone.” And yet, after the initial military successes were reported, Amr Mousa, the Secretary General of the Arab League, who is a candidate running to be the next president of Egypt, criticized the air strikes as going too far, only to be contradicted by later statements from the Arab League reaffirming its support.

What’s going on here? Does the mission have the support of the Arab world, including the Gulf Cooperation Council, or not?

• Why was Congress not given a formal voice in the run-up to the conflict? In both Houses of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, interventionists and isolationists have asked why was so much effort expended in getting the formal approval of the Arab League and U.N. Security Council, while the only contact with Congress was a hasty and brief session between President Obama and Congressional leaders just before Obama left Washington for a five-day trip to Latin America.

In all military engagements since Vietnam, after which the War Powers Act was passed requiring approval of Congress for the use of military force, members of Congress have been given the chance to vote on resolutions authorizing the sending of American troops into harm’s way. It is more than legitimate to ask why this was not done, and certainly Congress, as the coordinate branch of the government authorized to pass a declaration of war, must be given a formal say in the conflict in Libya.

• Was the United States firm enough in the events leading up to the commencement of hostilities? Brzezinski on Monday’s “Diane Rehm Show” on National Public Radio, and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. on several occasions, have said that the no-fly zone should have been imposed three or four weeks ago, when Qaddafi was against the ropes and seemed on the verge of being overthrown by the opposition forces who by then were advancing on Tripoli. When Qaddafi sensed that the West was hesitant, he unleashed his military and mercenaries to pound the rebels with heavy artillery, tanks and airstrikes, and warned that he would “show no mercy” on his own people as he sought to retain his dictatorship.

• To his credit, President Obama, waxing almost biblical said that the United States and its allies “cannot stand idly by” while the man who President Reagan properly labeled the “Madman of the Middle East” slaughters his own people, evoking the Torah’s words, “Do not stand idly by while thy neighbor bleeds.”

According to the New York Times and other sources, Samantha Power, an adviser to both Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Rice, who authored a Pulitzer Prize-winning book on genocide “A Problem From Hell,” played a major role in convincing her bosses to push for a humanitarian rescue mission. Power made it clear that the genocide in Rwanda in 1994, in which 800,000 Tutsis were killed by Hutus with nothing more than machetes over a 100-day period, could have been stopped in its tracks, just as the murderous rampage in the Darfur region of Sudan could have been stopped.

Despite the untidy and contradictory aspects of the run-up to the joint military action in Libya, France, Great Britain and other traditional allies are fighting alongside our own brave men and women, taking definitive and justified action to at long last eliminate the 42-year reign of terror of Muammar Qaddafi.

It is to be hoped that the many questions and contradictions surrounding this conflict can be resolved so that as many people as possible will be able to support the goal, which must include driving Qaddafi from power once and for all.

Robert A. Cohn is Editor-in-Chief Emeritus of the St. Louis Jewish Light.