Putting the 'Lib' into 'Libya'-and exit strategy?

Aaaaaaaarghgghhhhhghhghghhhhhh is pretty much the noise I'm making trying to ponder this one out. Deciding what the Lib Dems would have to do to piss me off enough to leave blah blah blah has given me a lot of thought, and as mentioned in a previous post, a war was the one thing I generally stuck to. And also from previous posts you will know of my anti-interventionist foreign policy view for reasons I won't repeat. After a few days of pondering I have basically decided I disagree with military intervention in Libya. So the question is, do I leave the party?

Yes

• This is an armed conflict that I disagree with. That is very serious.
• The moral high ground over Labour has now been somewhat lost. No matter what happened until now, we had the 'at least we didn't kill loads of people' argument. And to be honest, 'not as bad as Labour' is not a very high standard to set for your party anyway, so if they slump to near that standard, there is clearly a serious problem.
• If not now, then when? The party has done many things I don't fully support, although I agree with coalitions in general, this coalition, and accept that many things have been done in compromise. But if something happens which I had previously decided would definitely be a last straw, and I still remain in the party I have to ask myself if there's anything they can do that would make me leave. Have I become one of these tribal political slaves who belongs to a party for no reason beyond 'because they do'?
• It would be a relief not to have to defend a lot of bad coalition policies any more.

No

• I still generally agree with the party's role in coalition. Is it silly to leave over an issue like this?
• The situation is completely different from Iraq. International agreement has been reached, and military intervention is being done very cautiously which is a good thing, plus there is already a conflict so the UN can't be accused of warmongering.
• There is broad consensus that military action is the right thing to do, demonstrated by today's vote in parliament. Even the Green Party has supported a no fly zone, and there is no obvious anti-war movement.
• I have quite a strong anti-war stance that no party really conforms to. Can I condemn the party for agreeing to a war which has some strong arguments for it and is not clearly wrong the way Iraq was?
• Personal reasons. I like being in a party, and I like getting into party-related arguments. Being in a party is a gateway to all sorts of political activity and experience, particularly in a university. The Liberal Democrats are my social life. I love spending time with them and had a great time at party conference. I have also made several friends who I would no longer see or would be alienated from if I left. Working for a party is also a great way to get work experience. I have a lot to lose by leaving.
• The Lib Dems would have supported this military involvement in opposition too, and I probably would not have been put off them for it. When I set the benchmark was it not for supporting a war that was clearly wrong in the name of compromise or holding the coalition together? The purpose of setting a benchmark was how far a compromise I am not prepared to accept. This policy is not a compromise.
• There is no other party I would rather be a member of, and I will probably vote Lib Dem at the next election regardless.

Any comments would be greatly appreciated.

Libya

My first thought, upon reading that British forces could be in action in Libya as early as Friday (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/) was 'if that happens I will have to leave the Lib Dems'. Regular readers (all three of you) will know about my strong anti-intervention stance.
Also, I have often considered what the Lib Dems could do that would make me leave the party, and although I haven't decided on a definite tipping point, I always decided that if the UK went to war without very good reason while Lib Dems are in government I would leave. No matter what compromises the party has made, they always have, over Labour, the fact that they were the sole opposition to a long, disastrous, bloody and expensive conflict resulting in up to a million deaths. I can't keep arguing this if the Lib Dems have been involved in an invasion too.
Generally I believe that foreign intervention is not the business of countries like ours, particularly with our disastrous track record in Africa and the Middle East. I think even with good intentions and in the absence of ulterior motives, the outcome is almost never good for the victim country.
However, there are some differences between this conflict and Iraq, for example. Firstly, it appears that if action is taken it will be internationally agreed upon with UN resolutions. Secondly, a no fly zone places a clear demand on Gaddafi, the like of which was never placed on Hussein. And thirdly, it is a country already engaged in a bloody conflict. Iraq was a stable nation with working infrastructure that was destroyed by invasion. Libya is already in civil war, so the purpose of invading for regime change is not as clear-cut. There is an existing conflict we would simply be taking sides in, rather than creating a new conflict.
Ultimately, UN sanctioned military action is much more acceptable than random invasion, and the fact that there is already a conflict clearly come into it.
I suppose my decision of whether or not to remain in the party will come not through whether or not British troops go into action, but whether or not they do so legally, and if the conflict is resolved quickly and efficiently with maximum autonomy for the Libyans, a proper leaving strategy is decided and a stable democracy is left, not a corrupt puppet regime.
I will probably not immediately leave when invasion is announced, but I will seriously consider my position depending on the manner in which the invasion is conducted as well as its duration etc.

Update
Since writing, the UN has passed a resolution calling for intervention but not invasion (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12779628). So far this appears to have been well-handled. The prospect of Libya returning to Gaddafi's control is very real and extremely undesirable, so if UN powers can aid the rebels without invading this does not seem too objectionable.
What is interesting about the story is that Russia and China abstained on the vote because they believe military intervention sets a dangerous precedent. Firstly it seems worrying that the West, which usually tries to claim the moral high ground, is always so much more keen to enter into armed conflict. Secondly we are very lucky as a planet that China and Russia take such a responsible attitude to foreign intervention (although I question Russia's commitment to this due to their frequent conflicts with their neighbours), because if they had the same arrogance in their political systems that the liberal democracies do, they would surely be seeking to impose communism or whatever warped quasi-democracy Russia has on the rest of the world.