Paul Miller, writing in Foreign Policy, says the no-fly zone is only a means to an end:

"What is the end? Ostensibly, it is to protect Libyan civilians, in which case we'll have to keep the no-fly zone operating forever. In practice, it means we'll have to keep the no-fly zone in place until a new government takes power in Libya that does not have a score to settle with rebellious citizens. Thus, the goal is implicitly the overthrow of the Libyan government.

"If Gaddafi hangs on, Libya will be effectively partitioned, isolated from the world, and splintered into failed statelets, of which those held by the rebels become an international protectorate like Kosovo, or Iraqi Kurdistan in the 1990s. What's the strategy then?"

The New York Times says the coalition must act decisively to ensure Gaddafi is defeated:

"There is no perfect formula for military intervention. It must be used sparingly - not in Bahrain or Yemen, even though we condemn the violence against protesters in both countries. Libya is a specific case: Muammar Gaddafi is erratic, widely reviled, armed with mustard gas and has a history of supporting terrorism. If he is allowed to crush the opposition, it would chill pro-democracy movements across the Arab world."

Gideon Rachman, writing in the Financial Times, discusses the "potential gains" from removing Col Gaddafi from power:

"The first goal is humanitarian. The Gaddafi regime is extremely brutal and would have extracted a horrible revenge on the people and cities involved in the rebellion... If things go well, intervening in Libya might also help to turn the tide against the gathering forces of reaction in the Middle East. A democratic Middle East remains in the long-term interests of its people, and of the rest of the world. If Col Gaddafi succeeds in hanging on, unlike neighbouring leaders in Egypt and Tunisia, a powerful message would be sent to despots from Iran to Syria to Saudi Arabia - violence pays, compromise is folly."

The Telegraph's Diplomatic Editor, Praveen Swami, says the real challenge for the coalition will be to create a coherent government when the fighting stops:

"There is good reason to fear that the people's own government of which Col Gaddafi spoke won't be much better than the dystopia that preceded it. Power in Libya's rebel-held regions now lies with a disordered mosaic of tribal patriarchs and mid-ranking military officers who have abandoned the regime for more primordial allegiances. Eastern Libya's Zuwaya and Misratah tribal chieftains, who enjoyed great power before Col Gaddafi took over, sense an opportunity to seize control of oil revenues. In the west, the Warfala, under pressure from the regime since an abortive 1993 rebellion, see a chance to settle scores. For the most part, this leadership seems to have a moral compass that points in much the same direction as that of the regime."

George Will, writing in the Washington Post, asks what will the allies do if the rebels cannot dislodge Col Gaddafi from Libya entirely:

"If Gaddafi cannot be beaten by the rebels, are we prepared to supply their military deficiencies? And if the decapitation of his regime produces what the removal of Saddam Hussein did - bloody chaos - what then are our responsibilities regarding the tribal vendettas we may have unleashed? How long are we prepared to police the partitioning of Libya?"

The Financial Times quotes US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, giving a cautious response to the announcement:

“We are going to be not responsive or impressed by words, we would have to see actions on the ground and that is not yet at all clear,” Mrs Clinton said. “We will continue to work with our partners in the international community to press Gaddafi to leave and to support the legitimate aspirations of the Libyan people.”

James Denselow, in the Huffington Post, says the ceasefire marks a success for the UN, but the future of both Libya and Gaddafi remains uncertain:

"Libya's surprise announcement of a ceasefire... suggests that the resolution has succeeded in warning Gaddafi off risking [an invasion of Benghazi]... [But] over a longer term Gaddafi's response to limitations on Libya's sovereignty are unpredictable... Over the past week Gaddafi promised that "If the world gets crazy with us, we will get crazy too. We will respond. We will make their lives hell because they are making our lives hell. They will never have peace'... as long as Gaddafi remains in power the medium/long term impact of this decision could have a host of impacts..."

Kyle Wingfield, writing in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, says the announcement by Gaddafi's government comes too late to celebrate:

"Victory without firing a shot, right? Not exactly... [Gaddafi's] forces have beaten back the rebels from Zawiya (just outside the capital Tripoli), Ras Lanuf, Brega and Ajdabiya... In other words, [Gaddafi] has already accomplished most of what he set out to do when he began attacking the rebels. Had the UN action come two weeks ago, the balance of forces might have produced an outcome in which [Gaddafi] had to step down and the Libyan people had a chance to form a new, more representative government."

Alex Stevenson, at politics.co.uk, says the ceasefire does little to help the allied forces achieve their aim of removing Libya's leader from power:

"It complicates the implementation of the no-fly zone, which in logistical terms is already quite complex enough. Then there is the question of the extent to which it affects the dynamic of the conflict currently being fought between rebel forces holding out in Benghazi and those loyal to Muammar Gaddafi. Will a stalemate develop - and if so, what other 'necessary means' will be used to end the Libyan colonel's rule? Cameron suggested sending in an African Union force. In these circumstances, nothing is certain. The strategic goal is Gaddafi's removal. How long will that really take - and how far will the international community have to go to secure it?"

"Would Obama prefer a Gaddafi victory? If that sounds implausible, then just look at the record. On March 3, Obama announced that Gaddafi "must go". Two weeks have passed since then - and more than a month since the uprising began on February 15. In the interim, the tide of war has turned in Gaddafi's favour. Yet Obama has done nothing to make his own words reality. Every proposal - from the no-fly zone and aid to rebels, to recognition of a provisional government - has somehow become bogged down... The Obama administration may not care to admit it, but it did make a decision, and one of benefit to Gaddafi. Why? Perhaps President Obama reasoned something along these lines: "Yes, Gaddafi is a very bad guy... But things could be worse. Tribal leaders, fighting each other, inspired by Islamic ideology - all just 300 miles from the coast of Sicily?"

The director of the Foreign Policy Initiative, Jamie Fly, says in Foreign Policy that the American president "continues to dither" over Libya:

"Although [Obama] insists that all options are on the table, his administration has failed to outline a plan that could conceivably help the Libyan rebels oust Qaddafi and end the bloodshed. The weak American response pales in comparison with countries such as France - which has recognized Libya's revolutionary council as the country's legitimate government and has contemplated airstrikes - and even the Arab League, which endorsed a no-fly zone over the weekend... It is not too late. Obama should listen to those inside his administration and in the international community who believe that the United States should act to prevent further bloodshed. If he does not, Libya will become the latest in a long list of cases in which the United States, once again, ends up on the wrong side of history."

In the Guardian, Seamus Milne defends Mr Obama's Middle East policy:

"Increasingly, US and European politicians and media hawks are insisting it's all because the west has shamefully failed to intervene militarily in support of the Libyan opposition. The Times on Wednesday blamed Barack Obama for snuffing out a "dawn of hope" by havering over whether to impose a no-fly zone in Libya... But Saudi Arabia's dangerous quasi-invasion of Bahrain is a reminder that Libya is very far from being the only place where hopes are being stifled. The west's closest Arab ally, which has declared protest un-Islamic, bans political parties and holds an estimated 8,000 political prisoners, has sent troops to bolster the Bahraini autocracy's bloody resistance to democratic reform."

But in the Daily Beast Christopher Dickey urges Mr Obama to intervene:

"Of course, no one in Europe or the United States wants another quagmire in the Muslim world, and the latest polls drive that point home. According to the Pew Research Center a resounding 63 percent of Americans say the U.S. has no responsibility to act in Libya. A plurality opposes a no-fly zone, a huge majority is against airstrikes, almost half are against sanctions... So what's a leader like President Barack Obama to do? Well, one might say, "lead." Because, whether war-weary Americans want to believe it or not, the lack of direction in American policy right now - opposing Gaddafi but finding every excuse not to act against his forces - is going to be hugely damaging to their interests. As Jane Kinninmont of Chatham House in London put is, "The United States faces a crisis of credibility in the Arab world." And that translates into all sorts of dangers."

Robert Shrimsley imagines in the Financial Times a conversation between Mr Obama and a White House foreign policy adviser:

Adviser: "The Brits are pressing for a no-fly zone over Libya."
Obama: "That's pretty easy to do when you've abolished the Royal Air Force What's he planning to police it with, a British Airways 737? Thank you for joining us on this routine patrol; we will be circling Benghazi for a few hours. Insurgents are invited to help themselves to snacks and drinks from our trolleys."
Adviser: "The French are also demanding actual intervention, Mr President."
Obama: "We're being out-hawked by the French?"
Adviser: "We think it's empty rhetoric, Sir."
Obama: "I'm being outgunned on rhetoric?"