JMA,

Yes, I have distinguished between "limited means" (in military strategy and/or tactics), as opposed to a "limited result" (in the policy end goal which underlies the war) - Limited result vs limited means.

I'd suggest that the problem lies in confusion with the concept of "limited war", where that concept is considered to require "limited means" (in military strategy and/or tactics), as opposed to a "limited result" (in the policy end goal which underlies the war).

E.g., we (say the political masters) will conquer only the south 20 miles of the opponent's country - the "limited result". The means used do not have to be limited and may in fact take everything off the table - and use it. An example was Ike's back-channel proposition to the North Koreans, which would I suppose be patently illegal today (according to the ICJ) because it involved the threat to use nuclear weapons.

So, a "limited result" may be logical as a policy; but then all means necessary to that end goal must be employed.
I think I have been reasonably consistent with that distinction since 1964, when my mantra (as to policy vs North Vietnam via Lemay's stalking horse) was:

Choice Lemay,
Not LBJ.

2/3 of the US disagreed and voted for the "Peace Candidate". We soon entered into an Asian ground war and a halfa$$ed limited means bombing of North Vietnam.

Still a No Go on Libya - Nice try, though

Regards

Mike