"NATO still has more of those assets in reserve"
Maybe enough to rotate the existing assets for servicing when it becomes due, but NOT enough to build the attack to a critical mass
"has further land forces (completely un-involved in Libya) and naval forces to boot"
But we're not involved in a ground war there - and anyway those land forces are needed for rotation for Afghanistan. As for your comment about "naval forces" - not according to recent press quotes. The only naval assets that would matter are carriers (er WHICH carriers) and Tomahawks (of which we are in danger of running out...) And anyway - just how useful is a submarine launch platform which carries only 20 Tomahawks and then has to go home to get a reload? Cruise missiles only make sense it the launch platform has several hundred available for launch before replenishment
"A better conclusion to draw from progress in Libya is that a relatively small deployment of forces - with no politically-risky ground force presence - is having effect"
Exactly WHAT effect other than making NATO - and especially the UK as one of the proponents of this attack on Libya - appear to be totally impotent? We have gone into this half-hearted, under-resourced, with no serious sustained attack capability. Sending a few sorties a day from long range each with one or two warheads isn't going to achieve much.
Seriously, all this is going to achieve is to make us look like easy targets without the political will or military might to actually achieve