Thread: No Fly Zone for Libya?

man, it's pretty funny when you see the NYT, at least nicolas kristof, so gung-ho about kinetic activity.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/op...stof.html?_r=1

The Case for a No-Fly Zone
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: March 9, 2011

“This is a pretty easy problem, for crying out loud.”

For all the hand-wringing in Washington about a no-fly zone over Libya, that’s the verdict of Gen. Merrill McPeak, a former Air Force chief of staff. He flew more than 6,000 hours, half in fighter aircraft, and helped oversee no-fly zones in Iraq and the Adriatic, and he’s currently mystified by what he calls the “wailing and gnashing of teeth” about imposing such a zone on Libya.

I called General McPeak to get his take on a no-fly zone, and he was deliciously blunt:

“I can’t imagine an easier military problem,” he said. “If we can’t impose a no-fly zone over a not even third-rate military power like Libya, then we ought to take a hell of a lot of our military budget and spend it on something usable.”

He continued: “Just flying a few jets across the top of the friendlies would probably be enough to ground the Libyan Air Force, which is the objective.”

General McPeak added that there would be no need to maintain 24/7 coverage over Libya. As long as the Libyan Air Force knew that there was some risk of interception, its pilots would be much less motivated to drop bombs and more inclined to defect.

“If we can’t do this, what can we do?” he asked, adding: “I think it would have a real impact. It might change their calculation of who might come out on top. Just the mere announcement of this might have an impact.”

Along with a no-fly zone, another important step would be to use American military aircraft to jam Libyan state television and radio propaganda and Libyan military communications. General McPeak said such jamming would be “dead easy.”

As he acknowledged, any intervention also has unforeseeable risks, and, frankly, it’s a good thing when a president counts to 10 before taking military action. But I hope that President Obama isn’t counting to a googolplex.

The secretary of defense, Robert Gates, has said that a no-fly zone would be “a big operation in a big country” and would begin with an attack on Libyan air defense systems. But General McPeak said that the no-fly zone would be imposed over those parts of the country that Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi doesn’t control. That may remove the need to take out air defense systems pre-emptively, he said. And, in any case, he noted that the United States operated a no-fly zone over Iraq for more than a decade without systematically eradicating all Iraqi air defense systems in that time.

If the Obama administration has exaggerated the risks of a no-fly zone, it seems to have downplayed the risks of continued passivity. There is some risk that this ends up like the abortive uprisings in Hungary in 1956, in Czechoslovakia in 1968, or in southern Iraq in 1991.

The tide in Libya seems to have shifted, with the Qaddafi forces reimposing control over Tripoli and much of western Libya. Now Colonel Qaddafi is systematically using his air power to gain ground even in the east. As the International Institute for Strategic Studies, an arms analysis group in London, noted this week, “The major advantage of the pro-regime forces at the moment is their ability to deploy air power.”

I’m chilled by a conversation I just had by phone with a Libyan friend with military connections who has been candid in the past. In our latest conversation, he sounded as if our conversation was being closely monitored, and he praised Colonel Qaddafi to the skies. I can’t tell whether he believed that or had a gun pointed to his head. Either way, his new tone is an indication that the government has the upper hand now in Tripoli.

Senator John Kerry, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, told me that he tends to favor a no-fly zone — along with the jamming of communications — as soon as is practical. “The last thing you want is a 20-year debate on who lost this moment for the Libyan people,” Mr. Kerry noted.

I was a strong opponent of the Iraq war, but this feels different. We would not have to send any ground troops to Libya, and a no-fly zone would be executed at the request of Libyan rebel forces and at the “demand” of six Arab countries in the gulf. The Arab League may endorse the no-fly zone as well, and, ideally, Egypt and Tunisia would contribute bases and planes or perhaps provide search-and-rescue capabilities.

“I don’t think its particularly constructive for our long-term strategic interests, as well as for our values, to say Qaddafi has to go,” Senator Kerry told me, “and then allow a delusional megalomaniacal out-of-touch leader to use mercenaries to kill his people.”

So let’s remember the risks of inaction — and not psych ourselves out. For crying out loud.

Originally Posted by astralis

gunnut,

be careful with that terminology. more than a few muslims have died fighting alongside us, and there's quite a few crescents in arlington cemetery.

I speak in general terms. Most muslims are not terrorists but most terrorists are muslims.

There are the averages and there are the exceptions. What is the sentiment of the "average" muslims in the world toward the west in general, and US in particular?

Originally Posted by astralis

man, it's pretty funny when you see the NYT, at least nicolas kristof, so gung-ho about kinetic activity.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/op...stof.html?_r=1

I wonder if he supported the Iraq invasion or believed Saddam had stockpiles of WMD.

gunnut,

What is the sentiment of the "average" muslims in the world toward the west in general, and US in particular?

what does "average muslim" mean? there's no such thing.

it's also bad analysis to say "muslims hate us because we're not muslim". what proof do you have of this to make such a blanket statement on a billion+ people? by saying this you automatically reject the idea that there might be other legitimate political/economic causes for disagreement. that also works against the very IDEA behind "winning" the war on terror, which is principally to get muslims around the world to see our cause- non-violent forms of dialogue- as their own. (and if you liked the bushian/neo-conservative idea, to get them to see our values as their values, ie democracy.)

Now we no longer have averages.Perhaps because everyone is so unique and special. The problem with this line of thinking is that if you ask the opinion of the individuals in a group and you offer variable answer options you will indeed get an average.Look at any Gauss curve and you'll see where is the average and where are the extremes.

But no referendum was ever taken asking the Muslim population of the world what they think of whatever might trouble us.Not even a poll asking the right questions.
All there is available are empirical observations.So far I visited as a tourist Egypt,Syria,Tunisia and Turkey.What I did found out was deep resentment towards the West.Just sit in front of a coffee and ask those willing to talk to you the right questions.Being a naive looking kiddo with a dumb smile also helps

Originally Posted by Mihais

Now we longer have averages.Perhaps because everyone is so unique and special. The problem with this line of thinking is that if you ask the opinion of the individuals in a group and you offer variable answer options you will indeed get an average.Look at any Gauss curve and you'll see where is the average and where are the extremes.

But no referendum was ever taken asking the Muslim population of the world what they think of whatever might trouble us.Not even a poll asking the right questions.
All there is available are empirical observations.So far I visited as a tourist Egypt,Syria,Tunisia and Turkey.What I did found out was deep resentment towards the West.Just sit in front of a coffee and ask those willing to talk to you the right questions.Being a naive looking kiddo with a dumb smile also helps

Problem is, how much of the people tourists meet have been coached by the secret police to say things to scare the westerners into believing that the dictators are the only thing standing against the Neo Caliphate?

Ain't sociology fun?

That would be quite a heck of a secret police.I only said resentment,not outright support for those blowing themselves up in subways,although there were a few that considered those guys justified.Talks of Muslim unity there were a few,just as those highlighting the local and national peculiarities.
How that resentment turned out it's now clear for all to see.What geo-political formation will come out of this is yet to be seen,but for me the differences(and the divergent interests) between the 2 worlds are plain.I'm not holding an absolute truth and I have no intention to impose my truth on anyone.If what I think has value,in time a majority will come to the same conclusions as I have and act upon them.If not,I'm just another opinionated dumbass.

Originally Posted by gunnut

Then let the UN enforce this no fly zone. We're busy.

Slight typo, its called duty-to-protect. UN is likely a no go with Russia & China unwilling. More persuasion required before the UNSC will invoke chapter VII.

Failing that leaves a coalition of the willing, but if things get bogged down, remaining there without UN sanction will get harder.

Protest movement pleads for intervention as Gaddafi's forces step up counter-attack

Libyan rebels: 'Why won't the world help us?' - Africa, World - The Independent

Well he aint here!!!!

http://Squatters move into Gaddafi house