No Fly Zone for Libya?

**troung** · 10 Mar 11,, 17:20

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

* Recommend
* Twitter
* comments (107)
* Sign In to E-Mail
* Print
*
Reprints
* ShareClose
o Linkedin
o Digg
o Mixx
o MySpace
o Permalink
o

“This is a pretty easy problem, for crying out loud.”
Damon Winter/The New York Times

Nicholas D. Kristof
On the Ground

Nicholas Kristof addresses reader feedback and posts short takes from his travels.
Go to Blog »
Go to Columnist Page »
Readers' Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

* Read All Comments (107) »

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 it's 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.

•

I invite you to visit my blog, On the Ground. Please also join me on Facebook, watch my YouTube videos and follow me on Twitter.

**gunnut** · 10 Mar 11,, 19:08

Originally Posted by astralis

gunnut,

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.)

Perhaps, but we haven't found out what that might be yet. We appease and appease. They'll find new things to gripe about. It was our support for Israel. Now it's our war in Iraq and Afghanistan. After we get out of those places, they'll go back to complain about Israel.

We can stop supporting Israel, then it'll be something else. First will be a Palestinian state. Then it will be to get the jews out of the middle east. It's always something.

Ever noticed that we are always trying to appease them? Why don't they try to appease us once in a while?

**astralis** · 10 Mar 11,, 20:50

Perhaps, but we haven't found out what that might be yet. We appease and appease. They'll find new things to gripe about. It was our support for Israel. Now it's our war in Iraq and Afghanistan. After we get out of those places, they'll go back to complain about Israel.

We can stop supporting Israel, then it'll be something else. First will be a Palestinian state. Then it will be to get the jews out of the middle east. It's always something.

Ever noticed that we are always trying to appease them? Why don't they try to appease us once in a while?

why do you consider this through a religious lens vice a national one? what actions have we done that you consider appeasing? and what makes you think our actions there are connected to "appeasing" muslims?

**citanon** · 10 Mar 11,, 21:08

Originally Posted by astralis

why do you consider this through a religious lens vice a national one? what actions have we done that you consider appeasing? and what makes you think our actions there are connected to "appeasing" muslims?

I agree with Astralis. The "Muslim World" is a series of distinctive nations, regions, and peoples with separate cultures, view points, and interests.

IMO, what's going in Libya has nothing to do with appeasing Muslims and everything to do with supporting Libyans who have a real chance to build a free country.

**citanon** · 10 Mar 11,, 21:17

Originally Posted by Double Edge

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.

UN is a non-starter. Russia and China will never agree with it. It's against their fundamental interests to see it. They will delay it as long as possible to let Gadhaffi quash the rebels. If they agree to it, it would only be because they see that the situation has developed into another quagmire with which to sap the West's strength and will.

Waiting for their consent is utter folly. It's like asking your enemy where is the best point to cross the river.

**Skywatcher** · 10 Mar 11,, 22:51

Originally Posted by citanon

UN is a non-starter. Russia and China will never agree with it. It's against their fundamental interests to see it. They will delay it as long as possible to let Gadhaffi quash the rebels. If they agree to it, it would only be because they see that the situation has developed into another quagmire with which to sap the West's strength and will.

Waiting for their consent is utter folly. It's like asking your enemy where is the best point to cross the river.

The Chinese will support a non fly zone IF they think its the quickest way to get the oil flowing again (besides, they'll think that Russia will veto it anyways because Russia benefits from high oil prices).

**gunnut** · 10 Mar 11,, 22:52

Originally Posted by astralis

why do you consider this through a religious lens vice a national one? what actions have we done that you consider appeasing? and what makes you think our actions there are connected to "appeasing" muslims?

This specific incident is not religious. It might not even be national. But in time, these things always turn into a religions issues to them.

Do you consider the Palestinian issue a national issue or a religious issue? Iraq? Afghanistan? Bosnia?

None of these were religious issues at the time. They all morph into religious issues. They are used as a rally cry for jihad.

As far as appeasing goes, how about this? "Winning hearts and minds." Why do we have to "win" their hearts and minds? Why don't they try to win ours for a change? I don't see a movement in the islamic community in the US trying to "win hearts and minds" of Americans. Why are we "racists" for profiling muslims? Why aren't they racists for targeting westerners? Why am I the only one asking these questions?

**gunnut** · 10 Mar 11,, 22:57

Originally Posted by citanon

I agree with Astralis. The "Muslim World" is a series of distinctive nations, regions, and peoples with separate cultures, view points, and interests.

True. They have one more thing in common with each other than with the rest of the world: they're muslims.

Originally Posted by citanon

IMO, what's going in Libya has nothing to do with appeasing Muslims and everything to do with supporting Libyans who have a real chance to build a free country.

Don't get involved in someone else's domestic affairs, especially with nothing in it for us. There's no guarantee the new faction is benevolent to other Libyans and pro western values. If they are as ruthless to other Libyans as Qaddafi is now, we'd take the blame for putting them in charge. If Qaddafi should survive after our meddling, he certainly won't forget.

**citanon** · 10 Mar 11,, 23:33

Originally Posted by gunnut

True. They have one more thing in common with each other than with the rest of the world: they're muslims.

Yes, but for the purpose of discussing geopolitics the blanket term tends to obscure more than it reveals.

Don't get involved in someone else's domestic affairs, especially with nothing in it for us.

There's everything in it for us because we are involved every where in nations' domestic affairs. In the Middle East, we are there for oil and we are there to defeat terrorism, and even where our troops are not, our money is ever present. For decades now, the strong hand of American power has been covered in a velvet glove: namely, our insistance that we stand for freedom and democratic governance. Now that the Libyan people have answered our call, if we allow them to be crushed in the face of minor obstacles, our hypocrisy will be exposed for all the world to see, our moral justification for prosecuting the War on Terror will weaken, our future ability to influence events in the Middle East and else where will erode, and what remaining claims we have as the leader of the free world will dim. Beyond the Middle East and the War on Terror, this setback will change our relationship with both old and new Europe, and weaken our ability to contend with China for resources and influence in developing nations in Africa and South America.

There's no guarantee the new faction is benevolent to other Libyans and pro western values. If they are as ruthless to other Libyans as Qaddafi is now, we'd take the blame for putting them in charge.

There are no guarantees in life period. There is only calculated risk. The rebels, as they are now, seem to have a pretty good shot at building a reasonably free country. This is changing rapidly as the military elements are holding back and conserving their forces while allowing civilians to fight, die, or become discredited. In a period of weeks we could see the nature of the rebellion shift, and what started out as an outfit capable of putting on democratic governance will instead be whittled down to new strongmen waiting in the wings. Thus rapid action is required.

If Qaddafi should survive after our meddling, he certainly won't forget.

Let's be realistic here. There is no win for us in Qaddafi's survival. At this point it will be a major strategic setback and will have bad consequences for decades to come. He has to go.

If he doesn't, it will mean that when an American president proclaims to the world that a two bit dictator will less than a single division of competent soldiers must leave power, it has absolutely no meaning what so ever, and he is free to mow down his own people as he pleases and we will still have to deal with him. What then, remains, of the deterrence value of Afghanistan and Iraq? We have already failed to secure the Arabian Sea from Somalian piracy. If we now fail in Libya, how long before militants around the world conclude that we are so hobbled by our own insecurities and the Legacy of Iraq and Afghanistan that we will no longer strike back ruthlessly against terrorist activity? And if they reach those conclusions, how long before we see another massive attack on the US homeland?

**gunnut** · 10 Mar 11,, 23:53

Originally Posted by citanon

There's everything in it for us because we are involved every where in nations' domestic affairs. In the Middle East, we are there for oil and we are there to defeat terrorism, and even where our troops are not, our money is ever present.

I'm all for it if it means we get oil out of this deal, or if there's an Al Queda presence.

**kato** · 11 Mar 11,, 00:16

Originally Posted by gunnut

I'm all for it if it means we get oil out of this deal

The two US companies involved in Libya (Chevron and ConocoPhillips) withdrew from their licenses in last December in light of CNTP / China and ENI / Italy effectively ruling the market, and most of the rest being divided up between Total / France and Wintershall / Germany. There's a dozen minor players, including e.g. also BP - the US companies were among these.

The French move today (Sarkozy openly supporting the rebels) will give Total a rather favourable position in the future if the rebels survive this whole affair. He's gambling though. And Germany, Italy and even China don't have their frigates off the Libyan coasts for nothing either, even if they continue to support Gaddafi to some extent for now.

**T_igger_cs_30** · 11 Mar 11,, 05:26

This is turning into a cluster real quick............. normally I am more patient with things at this level as I cannot influence the outcome........ as far as I am concerned on this......Europe should lead the way, and the UK needs to be up front............. we are fast aproaching a no win situation ....qadaffi is a bastard of the first order and if anyone thinks he will forget all this rhetoric thats being spouted now by all governments well more fool them.............. Its gone to far he has to be taken down and out.

**T_igger_cs_30** · 11 Mar 11,, 05:52

The French move today (Sarkozy openly supporting the rebels) will give Total a rather favourable position in the future if the rebels survive this whole affair. He's gambling though. And Germany, Italy and even China don't have their frigates off the Libyan coasts for nothing either, even if they continue to support Gaddafi to some extent for now.

The French have never been known for being patient, this is a classic example, you are right "if" the rebels survive.......... the risk and outcome of this was to important to make such a diplomatic blunder......... spouted while the going was good for the rebels..........as we have seen 24 hours can make a whole word of difference.

**diablo49** · 11 Mar 11,, 07:39

Originally Posted by T_igger_cs_30

This is turning into a cluster real quick............. normally I am more patient with things at this level as I cannot influence the outcome........ as far as I am concerned on this......Europe should lead the way, and the UK needs to be up front............. we are fast aproaching a no win situation ....qadaffi is a bastard of the first order and if anyone thinks he will forget all this rhetoric thats being spouted now by all governments well more fool them.............. Its gone to far he has to be taken down and out.

I agree with this, bridges have been burned. Leaders of Europe and the president of the US have said that it is time for Gadhafi to go. If this doesn't happen on its own it will have to made to happen, even going so far as direct intervention to take out Gadhafi.

The alternative is not acceptable imo.

Let alone our foreign policy, such a disaster and show of irrelevance by the president would be a death knell for democrats on foreign policy for this term, barring a miracle elsewhere.

Quite frankly I can think of only a few worse outcomes.

That said I only support intervention when it becomes obvious that Ghaddafi will retain control of Libya otherwise.

**kato** · 11 Mar 11,, 09:15

Originally Posted by T_igger_cs_30

spouted while the going was good for the rebels

Umm, the rebels have been on the defensive for about a week now, and are effectively on the verge of collapse logistically. That's why they're calling for air strikes against Gaddafi, and that's why Sarkozy wants to give 'em to them.