Passing the Leadership in Libya

Mark this date down.  I'm going to defend President Obama.
While the left-leaning media is praising the POTUS for doing what he said, namely bombing for a few days and then passing control off, the right-leaning seems to repeat the chant of a "failure of leadership" over and over again.  Both could be correct depending on the coming days, weeks and months.  If American troops on the ground or air are to be used in fulfilling the majority of responsibilities in the future then I would side with the right-wing media.  How can American troops be used for their power without the influence of our military leaders?  If you want a military force that isn't bothered by being told what to do, then use NATO forces, not American forces.  As far as I am concerned, an American private comes with an American General. If we are going to pass off control, then we should pass off responsibilities to a corresponding level.  If this turns out to be a game of political pass-the-buck so that President Obama can say it wasn't his fault or choice, then shame on him for being gutless.  However, we don't know that is what is happening yet.  If, on the other hand, the coalition being supported by France, Britain and the Arab League takes the control and the responsiblity then perhaps we actually will have a President who does what he says.  I have already explained in other posts why we shouldn't have been there in the first place.  While I stick to my guns on the opinion, I admit that if our involvement is over, then it is more of a problem for those left in charge than it will be for us.  All I'm saying is let's stop assuming we know what is going to happen concerning American troop involvement.  I have my doubts of course, but I think we owe it to President Obama to wait and see.  The "Western" countries involved are already facing criticism because we are expanding our efforts past the "no fly zone".  This I totally agree with.  The mission was undefined, had no real parameters, and certainly no defined end-game.  I suppose after the lackluster leadership of President Bush in the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts we shouldn't be surprised.  The possibility of troops on the ground, or at the very least an expansion of the mission beyond what we were told, has been a cause for worry ever since President Obama proclaimed Gadhafi had to go on the 4th of March.  However, we ought to give him the  chance to show he meant what he said in respect to American troop involvement.  I'll rally against him if he lied, but as far as I can tell, we aren't there yet.  Whether you voted for him or not, support him in this venture until he shows he isn't worthy of that support.
Regardless of whether the POTUS keeps his word, every day we are hearing more atrocities committed by either accidental coalition killing or intentional killing by Gadhafi's military forces.  When we consider that the violence was well on its way to ending, how can we continue to call this a humanitarian mission?  We have accomplished nothing more than violating a sovereign state, whose existence we didn't seem to mind for the last 20 or 30 years.  We have caused the violence to last longer without any sort of definition of what we are aiming for.   Without removing the government in place with a new one, how can we say we accomplished anything?  Gadhafi has continued to attack civilians despite the 100+ missiles and various threats.  So someone tell me, what did we accomplish? While I'm willing to give the Administration time to prove it will basically halt our involvement, I still am waiting to hear what they think they accomplished in the first place.  I suspect that we will end up using Libya's resistance against foreign aggression to justify further involvement.  Somehow this reeks of a self-fulfilling prophecy if it comes to fruition.