In any war of choice the objective must be reasonable and achievable. Often wars of choice are conducted for internal political goals such as ensuring a victory in upcoming elections or to 'prove' the manhood of a leader that never saw combat. NATO fought two very successful limited wars in the Balkans in the 1990s. The US started and lost two major wars in the 2000s. The outcome of the current war is not certain, for the combatants may not speak of their objective. Yet the two combatants which will soon assume control of the situation have made it very clear what their objective is even if the USA must obfuscate. This was a war of choice. The three major combatants have one thing in common. When Reagan engaged in his moronic El Dorado Canyon attack in 1986, Gadaffi retaliated by blowing up two airliners, French UTA 772 and Pan Am 103, the latter of which landed on a village in the UK. Humanitarian considerations are an easy excuse to engage in a limited war where the forces of Arab democratic aspirations supply the 'boots on the ground." Gadaffi proclaimed a war of extermination smug that nothing could destroy his command, control and communications, air power, and heavy weapons.
from the article: The only thing worse than going to war is losing