We entered into this conflict with Libya to save tens of thousands of people in Benghazi from being slaughtered by their own leader.
But nearly three months on, and despite a NATO onslaught, Gaddafi survives.
As a leader who once harboured weapons of mass destruction, he is nothing, if not resourceful.
And I am not convinced that increasing our involvement would ensure his departure.
It would, however, increase both our forces’ exposure and the likelihood of more civilian casualties.
For I suspect Gaddafi is unlikely to cut and run. Like a cornered rat, he has nothing to lose by holding out to the bitter end.
The recent fates of both Liberia’s Charles Taylor and Serbian leader Ratko Mladic at the Hague are salutary reminders of what otherwise awaits him.
So far, there is no offer of safe passage to a country willing to give Gaddafi sanctuary.
Yet I would argue that such a course of action might save more lives in the long run.
Gaddafi now has only to play a waiting game and hope that the West’s resolve will break as the war drags on.
This week, the First Sea Lord has suggested that our intervention in Libya is unsustainable due to defence cuts.
And US Defence Secretary Robert Gates has observed that already, the greatest military alliance in history is possibly running out of munitions and certainly, of steam.
If we pull out, Libya might once again be a divided country, virtually returned to 1969, when Gaddafi deposed King Idris. It is emphatically not what most Libyans would wish for.
Nor does the West want the spectre of a wounded Gaddafi plotting from Europe’s southern boundary, while we prop up the rebels.
From the outset, we have born a heavy responsibility for the outcome of this war.
Understanding this, our military commanders have focused on regime change in the hope of a swift resolution.
Yet, for the best of reasons, we may yet end up with the worst of results and a long-term commitment.
As US Secretary of State Colin Powell once said about another Middle Eastern war: “You break it, you own it.”