NEW YORK (Reuters) – Early comments online and in newspapers point to cautious American support for a limited role in bombing Libyan air defenses but wariness over entangling the United States in an ill-defined military mission.

The United States was slow to act on Libya yet wise to play down its role in a military intervention, some U.S. editorials, columnists and bloggers said. They also raised concerns over a perceived lack of leadership in a "war by committee."

Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, in power since a military coup in 1969, lost control of large sections of the country in a revolt last month and his forces had been fighting back.

But a military coalition, including France, Britain and the United States, has been firing missiles at Libyan targets for several days to enforce a no-fly zone over the country, which was approved by the U.N. Security Council on Thursday.

The Libyan uprising followed popular revolutions -- without international intervention -- that ousted the presidents of Tunisia and Egypt.

The Wall Street Journal, which had called for action and is often aligned with Republican views, welcomed the assault but criticized its method.

"The use of force against Libya looks like the first war by global committee," The newspaper said on Monday. "We support the military action, even if it is much belated."

"But the war's early prosecution also raises concern about its leadership, its limited means and strategic goals. On none of these have coalition members been clear or unified, starting with President (Barack) Obama," the newspaper said.

Washington, looking to extract itself from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, wants as low a profile as possible in Libya, although it has quietly taken the lion's share of missile and air strikes so far, diplomats say.

The Washington Post backed limited goals.

"The president has been right to weigh U.S. options carefully and to work diligently to assemble a coalition. The United States cannot fight a war on behalf of Libyan rebels," it said in an editorial on Friday.

But as the White House said on Monday it would transfer the lead role in the North African operation within days, the U.S.-based CNN television news network was asking viewers, "Does the United States have a clear mission in Libya?"

Libya was not a hot topic on the social networking site Twitter on Monday. Among tweets, @scottbohlinger said, "Even if not fully consistent, action against Gaddafi achieves the political end of discouraging more abuse of human rights," while @improvcellist said: "I absolutely despise what Obama is doing in Libya. Let's help Japan instead."

A straw poll online at www.reuters.com found 58 percent of the 1,643 respondents supported the air strikes on Libya by the coalition, while 42 percent opposed them.

A Pew Research Center poll released a week ago found that 63 percent of Americans did not believe the United States had a responsibility to do something about the fighting in Libya.

'TROUBLING VAGUE'

Doug Bandow, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, wrote on The Huffington Post website that Obama made the wrong decision by becoming involved in the Libyan conflict.

"Libya is not America's war. It is justified neither on security or humanitarian grounds. Nor can Washington, overwhelmed with current deficits and future liabilities, afford to be world's permanent 911 number," Bandow wrote, referring to the U.S. emergency help number.

The USA Today newspaper said in an editorial on Monday that the definition of success for the military operation remained "troublingly vague," but that the patient diplomacy that led to the intervention had been encouraging.

"Obama's plan to step back within days after the initial attacks and cede substantial leadership to Europeans and Arabs is particularly wise," said the newspaper, adding the military action should be aimed "at a clear, attainable goal and fought with total commitment."

Howard Kurtz said in the online newspaper The Daily Beast that "Obama's move seems to have united the right and the center-left behind the barely debated military action -- but not the most liberal players in the punditocracy."

New York Times columnist Ross Douthat wrote on Monday that while there were advantages to this type of military operation -- such as spreading the burden and taking the edge off "instinctive anti-Americanism" -- there were also problems.

"Because liberal wars depend on constant consensus-building within the (so-called) international community, they tend to be fought by committee, at a glacial pace, and with a caution that shades into tactical incompetence," he wrote.

An editorial on Saturday in the New York Daily News tabloid said Obama had sacrificed "clarity of mission to international consensus."

It said Gaddafi must be stopped, but "that said, much else remains disturbingly unclear, including the scope of the larger mission and the identity of the commander who will ultimately call the shots."

"Waging war -- and this is war -- by committee is a losing proposition. That must not happen," the newspaper said.

(Reporting by Michelle Nichols; Editing by Peter Cooney)

NEW YORK/WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Libya released four New York Times journalists on Monday, nearly a week after they had been captured by Libyan forces while covering the conflict there, although three journalists for other outlets remained missing.

The journalists later gave a frightening account of their ordeal in which they said some of their captors threatened their lives.

The release had been in the works since Thursday, with Turkey serving as intermediary between the U.S. and Libyan governments.

The four, who had been allowed to speak to their families on Thursday, were released to the Turkish embassy in Tripoli and later arrived safely in Tunisia, the Times said.

The United States, lacking a diplomatic presence in Libya at the moment, asked Turkey to represent its interests there as part of the deal to free the journalists, Turkey's ambassador to the United States said.

"Because of the volatile situation in Libya, we've kept our enthusiasm and comments in check until they were out of the country, but now feels like a moment for celebration," Executive Editor Bill Keller said in a statement.

"And before long we'll all know the details of their experience," Keller said.

The Times journalists are two-time Pulitzer Prize winner and Beirut bureau chief Anthony Shadid, reporter and videographer Stephen Farrell and photographers Tyler Hicks and Lynsey Addario.

'SHOOT THEM'

In an account reported by the Times, the journalists said they were captured at a checkpoint in Ajdabiya by forces loyal to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

As they were being pulled from the car, rebels fired on the checkpoint, sending the four running for their lives, but they were caught by soldiers, the report said.

"I heard in Arabic, 'Shoot them,'" Shadid said. "And we all thought it was over."

"One of the others said: 'No, they're American. We can't shoot them,'" Hicks said. The four journalists said they were bound and put in a vehicle which stopped repeatedly at checkpoints, where each time a new group of soldiers punched them or struck them in their backs with rifle butts.

One of their captors threatened to decapitate Hicks, and Addario said she was repeatedly groped and told she was going to die.

The United States has formally suspended operations at its embassy in Tripoli and asked Turkey to act as its "protective power" in Libya, ambassador Namik Tan told Reuters.

The Turkish ambassador in Tripoli immediately contacted Libyan authorities to request the release. The handover was delayed a day by the resumption of U.S. and allied air strikes on Tripoli on Sunday.

The group had been traveling through the rebel controlled eastern region of Libya without visas, like many Western journalists, to cover the uprising against Gaddafi, the Times reported. They were detained by forces loyal to Gaddafi on March 15 in Ajdabiya, the paper said.

Three journalists, including two working for Agence France-Presse, have gone missing while covering the fighting in Libya, the news agency said on Sunday.

AFP said in a statement that Dave Clark, a reporter based at its Paris headquarters, and Roberto Schmidt, a photographer in its Nairobi bureau, had not been heard from since they sent an email to senior editors on Friday evening.

They were accompanied by Joe Raedle, a photographer from the Getty Images agency who also had not been heard from since Friday evening, AFP said.

(Additional reporting by Tulay Karadeniz and Jennifer Saba; editing by John Whitesides and Eric Beech)

PHOENIX (Reuters) – A federal judge on Monday ordered Jared Lee Loughner, the college dropout charged in January's Arizona shooting rampage, to undergo a mental evaluation in Missouri to see if he is competent to stand trial.

Federal prosecutors earlier this month asked for Loughner to receive an evaluation.

U.S. District Judge Larry Burns wrote in his ruling that the purpose of the examination is not to focus on Loughner's mental state at the time of the shooting.

"The question at issue is whether the defendant is presently suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him, or to assist properly in his defense," he said.

Loughner's mental competency has been an issue in the case since soon after the January 8 shootings. Officials at Pima Community College in Tucson said he withdrew from the school last year amid questions about his mental health.

Analysts and commentators also cited strange writings and videos that he posted online before the shooting.

Loughner faces federal charges that he opened fire on U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords and a crowd of her constituents at a gathering at a Tucson, Arizona, supermarket.

Six bystanders, including a 9 year-old girl and a federal judge, were killed and 13 others, including Giffords, were wounded in the shooting.

In his ruling, Burns agreed with prosecutors that a medical referral center at a federal prison facility in Springfield, Missouri, was the best place for Loughner to be evaluated.

The facility has medical staff that can conduct neurological tests and has psychiatrists available for assistance around the clock, Burns said.

Loughner's attorneys had asked for him to be evaluated in Arizona, arguing that transferring him from Tucson could worsen his mental state and disrupt their relationship with him.

Burns ruled that Loughner's attorneys may retain an independent expert to evaluate him, but that the court-ordered assessment should take place at the Missouri facility.

Burns said he expects a report on the mental health examiners' findings by May 11.

(Writing by Alex Dobuzinskis: Editing by Peter Bohan)