Sure? Of course not. Will it likely suppress actions against rebels? Very likely yes.2. THE HUMANITARIAN ARGUMENT - Are we sure that our involvement will actually stop a slaughter? If so, will it save more lives than the air strikes cost?
It's possible that the goals are being formulated and part of the reason for taking action when we did was to ensure we had time to make a decision.3. THE MISSION ARGUMENT - What exactly is the goal of our mission - to protect civilians or to depose Gaddafi? If it's the latter, why not just come out and say it? If it's the former, are we going to bomb rebel sides that attack Gaddafi's forces too?
You are assuming that this is all that will be done. With rebels on the ground already in the country, the likelihood of air strikes to support them is high.4. THE PRACTICAL ARGUMENT - What makes it so clear-cut that air strikes and bombings will be sufficient to win this conflict? Saddam Hussein survived those for 12 years.
Any increased stability in the middle east is likely very valuable as well.5. THE OPPORTUNITY COST ARGUMENT - Every dollar spent on Libya and every soldier deployed to Libya is one less dollar and one less soldier that we have for somewhere else. Is Libya the most pressing humanitarian conflict in the world? Is Libya the conflict where American interests are most at stake? No and no.
Questions are good, but simply asking questions and deciding that since there are questions we should not act is a quick way to reach paralysis.