Exactly, as the article points we should elevate the End to level we keep elevating the Means. Without a clearly defined Political Objective there is no way to properly organize your response, there is no way to properly choose which means(Air,Ground,Sea) to use.
That doesn't answer the question.

When you have multiple competing end states among coalition partners, who gets to pick the "right" one?

In this case it seemd the "means" to impose a no-fly zone is a no brainer. But what is the braoder "end"?

Is it simply protecting cvilians without choosing sides?

Is it regime change?

Is it avoidence of an iraq-like on-going pro Gaddafi insurgency after his government falls?

Is it a "reboot" of the political state so oil and gas contracts can be re-negotiated?

Is it ensuring a democratic government replaces Gaddafi (meaning the current rebels may not be who what to ultimately win?)

Its easy to say the "strategy should be what you start with, but how do you actually do that in a complex real-world situation like this?