Their official position is that they don't mind "protecting civilians" as the UN resolution states, but they think that bombing from afar is not working to protect them.
I believe they would have said nothing if only NATO sent airplanes to patrol the skies and shoot down anything that flies without permission. Similarly, any AA site that fires upon NATO would be destroyed. This is how it was done in Iraq, for many years. Saddam was completely denied the air, but there was basically no damage to ground forces or civilians.
The Arab League has the same complaint, by the way:
Moussa said the Arab League’s approval of a no-fly zone on March 12 was based on a desire to prevent Moammar Gaddafi’s air force from attacking civilians and was not designed to endorse the intense bombing and missile attacks — including on Tripoli, the capital, and on Libyan ground forces
(as seen here.) And certainly the UN resolution said nothing about targeting and killing Gaddafi or his family (which appears to have happened.) In other words, the generals used a lot of force, and they reportedly selected targets that you select in a major war, not in a police action, especially when you are not at war with the country.
Here is one rambling interview given by a general that is responsible for the area. I'm not sure that he is competent to give interviews in real time, or even to talk to anyone.
It seems pretty obvious to even a casual observer that this thing escalated almost immediately from “enforcing the UN approved no-fly zone” to providing close air support for the rebels and attempted decapitation strikes.