"all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation
force of any form on any part of Libyan territory..."
It remains to be seen whether BHO will now seek congressional authorization for the use of military force, or enter into hostilities with nothing more than a permission slip from the UNSC. Either way, we are entering into an open-ended commitment with no exit plan, taking sides against a dictator who is undoubtedbly a bad guy but who poses no threat to us, with no clear idea of who makes up the opposition. Familiar, eh?
The best case scenario would be that (a) the other parties behind the resolution do most of the work, (b) the old regime quickly collapses, (c) the opponents refrain from retaliating with their own atrocities on civilians, and (d) the newly empowered agree among themselves to have free elections and a democratic constitution. Unfortunately we had similar best case scenarios the last two times and it didn't work out all that smoothly.
Some obvious things to worry about:
(a) Suppose Ghaddafi turns out to be faster or stronger than expected, and takes the major east Libyan towns before, or even in spite of, any UN action. Then what? Shrug and leave, let him hang the prominent citizens of half the towns in the country, and spend the next twenty years (dictators live long lives) boasting that he beat the UK, France, the US, and the entire Arab league combined? Or will we decide to ramp it up and take him out anyway despite the rebels being routed - by air power alone?
(b) Suppose Ghaddafi loses and the rebels move into Tripoli. Nevermind whether we have a plan, do they have a plan? Is there even an identifiable leader, or is it more like Villa, Carranza, and Zapata temporarily putting off the "discussions" about who will be in charge? If they do fight among themselves, does our mandate still include jumping in to protect civilians?
(c) It now appears Ghaddafi might have some actual supporters. Do we expect them to just quietly fade away if the rebels win, or will we have five years of Muammar's Fedayeen planting IEDs, blowing up police stations, and trying to destablilize Tunisia and Egypt?
Of course you could argue that most of the bad stuff above is likely to happen anyway, without us doing anything. Here are some downsides directly connected to us getting involved: (a) navy and air force stretched even thinner, (b) ground operations required to retrieve downed pilots, (c) lots and lots of money and excuses for various national security measures, (d) droned-Libyan-wedding-party-of-the-week, and (e) adding a largish clan of North Africans to the club of people who think the US is a valid target for terror attacks.
At this point our best hope for staying out is for Congress to forbid expenditures of funds on this mission. But that's not likely to get through the Senate, so it looks like our President will get his third war.