Respectfully, I do not concur with the assessment of mission creep, and believe Pious Pilot to have hit the nail squarely on the head. It appears that from the first, the objective has been, no matter the fig leaves of rhetoric presented at the UN, to remove Col Q from power, using the "Arab Spring" unrest as lever/excuse.
Thus, serials and branches to a variety of Op Plans have been sorted through and accepted/rejected in the NATO Headquarters since before the Ops were more than a day or two old.
What is most interesting is the constant denial that getting Colonel Q out of town is the mission, and "protecting civilians" is the rhetoric resorted to time and again.
Attack helicopters may fill in a citical air support gap, but they also present further opportunities for Colonel Q's folks to shoot down a NATO asset, given the environment they typically operate in, which begs the question:
Why has the risk calculus been changed, yet again?
Best wishes to the aircrews who get this duty, and remember what Saddam's boys did to frustrate a large Apache raid/deep attack in 2003.
Colonel Q's forces and supporters may be the enemy, but I get the sense that they are most determined.