Libya: Who's in charge?
It is rare indeed that the allies in an international military intervention of the scale witnessed in Libya are unsure about who should command the operation.
Initially it was run by the United States and their Africa Command out of Germany. But the Americans have made it clear they don't want the leadership role. President Obama has said they will transfer the command of Operation Odyssey Dawn in a couple of days, but to whom?
Either the operation would be under British/French command or Nato. And there the problems and disputes begin.
The French - certainly initially - were against Nato involvement because Nato's reputation, in their view, was damaged in the Arab world, due to its involvement in Afghanistan. France believed it crucial to draw Arab states into the military operation and in their view Nato didn't help.
Some allies believe France launched the first attacks without fully informing its allies. That has led to tensions.
France and Germany strongly disagree about the operation. Yesterday the German Foreign Minister, Guido Westerwelle, said "we calculated the risks and if we see that three days after this intervention began, the Arab League has already criticised this intervention, I think we had good reasons."
The Italians, who are offering seven of their bases to the operation, want Nato to take command. Several other European countries are demanding that the operation be run out of Nato.
Norway says its fighter jets will not participate until a clear command structure is in place.
Turkey, with its substantial business interests in Libya, sees itself as a potential negotiator to end the crisis. There is also clearly tension with France. Ankara is wary of France's leadership in the air strikes.Turkish objections are stalling the alliance's participation in the campaign.
Paris believes Turkey has its own agenda in the Middle East, while Ankara is frustrated that France opposes its bid for full EU membership.
Some diplomats believe that France wanted to avoid early involvement of Nato for two reasons. It wanted the freedom of action to "save" Benghazi and it wanted to enlist Arab support without the Nato brand, whilst accepting that Nato would have to become involved later.
Meanwhile a significant number of countries are criticising the scale of the operation. China wants an immediate ceasefire. Russia is critical. African countries like Uganda are firmly against. India is very doubtful.
On the ground it has become more difficult for coalition planes to find Gaddafi's forces as they are in urban areas. So far the opposition forces have not been able to seize the initiative. There are clearly divisions as to whether the Libyan leader is a target. The military in the UK and the US clearly don't think he is. So the question remains as to what the goals of the operation are. Clearly saving civilian lives, but there are limits to how that can be achieved from the air.
The French Foreign Minister, Alain Juppe, probably came closest yesterday to revealing what the strategy is. He said he hopes that Gaddafi's government will break up under pressure.
But the lesson of the first few days of Operation Odyssey Dawn is that time is probably short; that the international community will quickly lose patience with a long campaign.
It doesn't help that there are so many divisions over running the campaign.
UPDATE at 1545 gmt: Nato did agree on Tuesday to begin enforcing a UN arms embargo on Libya, using aircraft and ships in the Mediterranean to "conduct operations to monitor, report and, if needed, interdict vessels suspected of carrying illegal arms or mercenaries".
Nato also pledged to help enforce the no-fly zone - "to bring our contribution, if needed, in a clearly defined manner" to the effort. But it was clear that Nato would not yet be co-ordinating the Libya mission.