ONLY a year in office, and the coalition Government is already in danger of being sucked into a foreign conflict without any obvious exit plan.

Nato’s initial objectives in Libya were laudable: they were to prevent Colonel Muammar Gaddafi from slaughtering thousands of civilians in the rebel town of Benghazi.

Nato’s initial action worked.

Gaddafi has been unable to march east and bloodily retake land from the rebels. That action is on-going, preventing Gaddafi from launching atrocities against his own people. But it has meant that the Libyan civil war is stuck in stalemate.

So what are we going to do now?

At the weekend, the Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir David Richards, called on Nato to “up the ante”.

But where would this lead us to?

It is widely accepted that Nato wants to remove Gaddafi from power.

While this would be a desirable outcome, it may well be one that is beyond the scope of the United Nations resolution which allows Nato involvement.

How far are we going to up the ante to remove Gaddafi? Increased bombing increases the likelihood of the deaths of civilians – the ones we are supposed to be protecting – and it downgrades the viability of the postwar country and so harms the lives of civilians.

And if we do remove Gaddafi by upping the ante, who are we going to put in his place, and will that ruler or government require our protection – our peacekeeping troops on the ground – while it establishes itself amid the mayhem of warring militias?

And if we up the ante against Libya, why aren’t we even beginning to question the hands being played by Syria and Bahrain where civilians are being killed?

A country scarred by prolonged involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq would be foolhardy to up the ante against Libya without full explanation from the Prime Minister of where we are going.