London - A week after the military intervention in Libya, a number of big question marks still hang over the multinational air campaign led by Western countries.

The first one is about the objective of the intervention. The March 17 United Nations resolution sets the goal of protecting Libyan civilians by all necessary means, but an intense debate has ensued over whether to force a leadership change there.

Related readings:  China calls for efforts to avoid civilian casualties in Libya  Libya agrees with AU's road map  NATO to take Libya mission command soon  France estimates Libya operation to last for weeks

Pointing out the differing voices within NATO about whether the operation should oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, Dr Alexis Crow from London-based think tank Chatham House said the Western military bloc has to decide whether Libya is in "a tribal conflict or a war for democracy".

Dr Christian Le Miere, a research fellow in naval forces and maritime security at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, another London-based think tank, said that although the stated intent of British policy is not necessarily a leadership change, Prime Minister David Cameron would not be too unhappy to see the back of Gaddafi.

However, in the wake of the controversial wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, British politicians are wary of being associated with leadership changes in other countries, Le Miere added.

Another question mark is that what if Libyan government troops hide out in towns to protect themselves from airstrikes of the intervening parties, which have ruled out deploying ground troops in the Northern African country.

"It's very difficult if you don't have what's called a hammer and anvil strategy with ground troops complementing air power," Crow said.

Then she put forth another question: What if a stalemate took place, with government troops held off by air attacks but the rebels unable to make headway because of lack of arms? Such a scenario would turn Libya into another Iraq, she said.

Meanwhile, the use of force drains resources, and Britain is in no economic shape to continue a military intervention, Crow cautioned.

Command and control of the multinational operation is also a problem. NATO has agreed to take over command of efforts aimed at enforcing a no-fly zone and an arms embargo, but faces internal disputes on taking charge of offensive operations.

Military strikes against Libyan targets are still led by the United States, which Crow said has been drained "both materially and ideologically in terms of military intervention".

But British Foreign Secretary William Hague has said he has "every expectation that there will be a NATO command of the entire operation, not just the no-fly zone and the arms embargo".

Representatives of intervening countries and international organizations are expected to meet in London next week to map out the political direction for operations in Libya.