NATO member states decided on Sunday to take over full command of the military operations against Libya from the United States, a rare move in the US' diplomatic and military history, and one that many believe does not alter the dominant role of the US in the operations, since NATO is a US-led military alliance.

The change is merely a move designed to ease the domestic and international pressure on the US.

Before the military strikes on Libya, US President Barack Obama hesitated over whether to resort to force amid the differing voices in his administration, foreshadowing a possible handover of command.

Obama feared to repeat the US unilateral failure in Iraq, so "the Obama Administration made clear from the start that it was not enthusiastic about military action and would support it only if it were requested by the Libyan opposition and the Arab League," wrote Fareed Zakaria, a commentator and columnist for Time magazine.

Obama, who is about to start his re-election campaign, also has his own domestic concerns. Years ago when the Bush administration pressed a bill on the use of force upon Iraq in the Congress, Obama was among the few US congressmen who voted against it. That became one of his most important "political assets" when he ran for president in 2008.

If Washington actively directed and participated in the military action against Libya, Obama might be regarded as a pro-war president, which might damage his re-election chances.

For Obama, military action was not an easy decision, but he probably never expected that even with the support of Arab countries and mandate of a UN resolution, the military operations would spark so much criticism both at home and abroad.

"The president seems to have angered almost every major group. He's either done too much or too little or he's done it too slowly," said James Lindsay, a former official in the Clinton White House who is now with the Council on Foreign Relations.