All four members Maine's Congressional delegation have this week criticized President Barack Obama's strategy toward Libya. In a series of emailed statements, each raised two particular misgivings: the president's decision to take military action without Congressional approval and an apparent lack of clarity about the aims of the conflict.

Republican Senator Susan Collins said she was "troubled" that aggressive military action was ordered, "when there is no national emergency for our country. The United Nations' Resolution," she added, "is not a subsistute for a vote by the United States Congress."

Collins also said the U.S. role in attacking Libya should be limited to providing intelligence and logisitical support while Arab League states, such s Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Oman and the United Arab Emirates, lead the enforcement of a no-fly zone.

Fellow Senate Republican Olympia Snowe shares this view, along with the opinion that President Obama needs to do a better job of explaining the goals of the mission to the U.S. public.

First District Democratic Congresswoman Chellie Pingree is concerned about this turning into another "open ended war with no exit strategy."

Professor Christian Potholm said she has a point.

"I was troubled by the lack of a coherent statement about what we were going to do to accomplish the mission such as it is," Potholm said.

Potholm teaches, among other things, conflict simulation and conflict resolution at Bowdoin college in Brunswick.

"It seems to me there's a great deal of ambiguity as to whether we're there for regime change, to take sides in a civil war or simply to prevent Gadhafi from over-running a couple of cities in the far East," said Potholm.

Potholm said that sense of confusion is compounded by the fact that the U.S. is involved in a multi-lateral effort.

"As Napoleon said, if I have to go to war let it be against a coalition. It seems there's a great deal of confusion within the decision-making apparatus about what needs to be done and who's going to do it, so it's a very murky situation," said Potholm.

Second District Democratic Congressman Mike Michaud also joins the chorus of concern - talking of an "alarming trend in recent years" of U.S. Presidents going to war without Congressional approval.

It was this trend, he said, that the War Powers Act was supposed to prevent.

Ron Schmidt, political science professor at the University of Southern Maine, said the War Powers Act was introduced in the early '70s in reaction to the Vietnam War.

It was he said, an attempt by Congress to limit presidential power when it comes to declaring war.

Under the terms of the Act, Schmidt said President Obama has 60 days after committing forces, or 90 days if an extension is sought, to seek Congressional approval or to officially declare war.

"My guess is that if he doesn't have troops withdrawn or an official declaration of war within 60 days, there are going to be people in Congress arguing that he's acting in a unconstitutional fashion, then the question will be whether it comes to the courts or not," Schmidt said.

While there may be voices raised in Congress if this happens, experts do not believe the matter will end up before a judge.

Cab Howard is assistant law professor at the University of Maine and every president since Nixon, he said, has taken the view that the War Powers Act is an unconstutitional intrusion on presidential powers - and furthermore:

"There's never been any litigation on this, no court has ever ruled on the question of whether it's constitutional or not," Howard said.

If the issue were to come up before a court, he said there's a pretty good chance it would be ruled a non-justiciable question, meaning it's a matter which cannot be settled in court.

"All of which means that the War Powers Act, though perhaps well-meaning as an effort by the Congress to reign in the President's ability to start wars, is probably fairly ineffectual," said Howard.

And, he added, the fallout from the Libya conflict, for President Obama at least, is likely to more political than legal.