The time for a no-fly zone is now

Posted By Dov Zakheim Tuesday, March 8, 2011 - 11:46 AM Share

The calls by liberals like John Kerry, and some not-so-liberal types like John McCain, have prompted a reaction from both the administration, which prefers meaningless pronouncements over concrete action to influence events on the ground, as well as from solid conservatives like my colleague and friend Kori Schake, who worry about the true nature and intentions of the Libyan opposition. In the meantime, however, Muammar al-Qaddafi continues both to profit from oil revenues -- Libya is still exporting oil -- and to kill his own people. His aircraft continue flying with impunity, and bombing targets on the ground. Just as the Obama administration's bluster has had no effect whatsoever on the course of the civil war, so too have the much vaunted sanctions approved by the U.N. Security Council done little to unseat the Libyan madman.

Some of Libya's rebels are saying they do not want U.S. intervention; others are pleading for it. And it is true that no one knows who these rebels really are. So there is much to the argument that arming these people -- who in any event have managed to obtain arms on their own -- may not be a terribly good idea. In addition, since at least some of the rebels themselves have stated that they oppose American air strikes, much less any sort of intervention on the ground, there is no reason for the United States, or any of its reluctant allies, to contemplate such actions.

At the same time, however, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and the Pentagon have gone much further: they insist that any kind of military action -- even a no-fly zone -- simply places excessive demands on U.S. resources. Libya's air defenses would first have to be demolished, they posit, and even then, the country is just too big. And, they argue, any action by the United States must be taken in conjunction with its allies -- meaning NATO. Since several NATO states, notably Turkey, are averse to interfering with Mr. Qaddafi's bloodletting, nothing will happen. How convenient.

The Obama administration appears unclear about why a no-fly zone is called for. It is not just a matter of the rebels' interests; it is, first and foremost, in U.S. interests. After all, what if Qaddafi were to defeat the rebels because there was no interference with his air strikes against them, which are increasing with every passing day. Would his victory serve U.S. interests?

The administration seems to prefer to gloss over the fact that Libya's air defenses hardly should be a threat to a major carrier-based "alpha strike," or an attack by land based aviation -- or both. The United States has some 200 aircraft within striking distance of Libya, a much easier target to deal with than, say, Afghanistan or Iraq. And U.S. aircraft could deploy from, and be supported by, a host of bases strung among its Mediterranean NATO partners. If these forces nevertheless are deterred by Libya's third-rate air defenses, one might rightly wonder how the United States Navy and Air Force might be expected to face a truly formidable foe.

Similarly, the administration's argument about Libya's size is rather specious. A no-fly zone would not have to extend very far inland at all; Libya's key cities are in or near its Mediterranean coastline and a no-fly zone need not last for years, as it did until Iraq was invaded in 2003.

As for NATO approvals, it is one thing to mount a major ground attack, for which allied support, and a U.N. resolution, may well be appropriate. But a no-fly zone is something else. How heavily did the Clinton administration rely upon other forces to maintain the no-fly zone over Iraq?

Ultimately, if Libya's bloodbath continues, as no doubt it will, pressure will mount for military action that goes well beyond a no-fly zone. And if Qaddafi then falls, no matter who succeeds him. The United States will once again be blamed for bring about "regime change." The Arabs will resent U.S. intervention and they will find a way to blame Israel for it all. In due course, American flags will once again be burned on the Arab "street" throughout the region.

It would be so much more advantageous to long-term U.S. interests if Washington were to mount a no-fly zone operation now -- including knocking out Libya's air defenses -- so that more members of Libya's armed forces will be encouraged to defect from Qaddafi, without the United States having to intervene on the ground. The alternative, which the administration continues to prefer, is to sit back and let events dictate what the United States should do. This is not policy; it is hand-wringing of the worst sort.

DIBYANGSHU SARKAR/AFP/Getty Images

EXPLORE:MIDDLE EAST, NORTH AFRICA, NORTH AMERICA, DEMOCRACY, DIPLOMACY, FREEDOM, HUMAN RIGHTS, INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, LIBYA, SECURITY, TURKEY, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY, UNITED NATIONS
 

CARDENAS697

5:48 PM ET

March 8, 2011

Not are fight

In 1991, the United States, United Kingdom, France, Turkey and other states intervened in Kurdish-Iraqi dispute in northern Iraq by establishing a no-fly zone

In 1992, the United Nations Security Council passed United Nations Security Council Resolution 781, prohibiting unauthorized military flights in Bosnian airspace. This led to Operation Sky Monitor, where NATO monitored violations of the no-fly zone but did not take action against violators of the resolution.

The important fact about "No Fly zones" Most of them are accomplished and paid for by the US. My feeling is we are involved in Iraq and Afganistan. Do we really need to spend any more capital and American lives In Libya? Not are fight?

 

HURRICANEWARNING

6:50 PM ET

March 8, 2011

the time for action in Libya

the time for action in Libya is NEVER.

They don't want us there. They have made that abundantly clear. Unless we have a great wish for an additional 10-20%radicalization of the Muslim world, I say we stay out of Libyas business. Doing nothing here is alot better than doing something, then accidentally doing something very bad (inevitability), and never being able to recover from it perception wise.

 

SCOOP

4:41 PM ET

March 10, 2011

The dead cannot speak...

Pro-Gadhafi kidnap gangs silencing foes — sometimes for good
By Miranda Leitsinger, msnbc, 3/10/2011
"An unknown number of people are believed to have been kidnapped by Gadhafi supporters in Libya since the uprising began in February. In some cases, relatives saw their loved ones arrested, while in others, the victims simply vanished. Some bodies were found, while the fate of others remains unknown. Some may have fled the fighting, but witnesses, experts and human rights groups say the frequency of the reports and the fact that kidnappings have long been used by Gadhafi to silence his critics suggest that an abduction campaign is occurring."

 

STEVEM

8:11 PM ET

March 8, 2011

It's a Euro-Problem

More Neocon hackery from Zakheim.

Libya is in Europe's backyard. They buy a lot of Libyan oil. They have air forces. Let them set up a No Fly Zone.

 

ZATHRAS

10:59 PM ET

March 8, 2011

Oh, calm down

i can appreciate the value of showing resolve in difficult situations. This, though, is no more than an appeal to adopt a policy of looking tough and acting tough, and worrying about what happens later, later.

Zakheim calls for American air strikes on a government engaged in a civil war without consulting Congress, and without consideration of what might happen if we took the steps suggested and still didn't see that government fall. Neither of these is wise. I am bound to add that the prospect of something like this happening might have been enough to deter Qadhafi from using his air force against protesters on foot, if Barack Obama's predecessor in the White House had not shot America's military bolt in Afghanistan and Iraq.

One of the more difficult challenges American foreign policy faces now is reckoning with the damage done by the last administration. Without considering this, successful armed intervention in Libya looks pretty easy, a risk well worth taking. Reality is that we need to calculate risk more precisely now than we might have a decade or so ago.

 

PALMER

6:26 PM ET

March 9, 2011

Agree-let's calm down and do things legally and prudently

I am in violent agreement with Zathras, and want to add that it is time the United States reminded itself of its obligations under international law before unilaterally intervening in another nation-states civil war. We have proven quite capable in the past of ignoring the wholesale slaughter of populations (Guatemala springs to mind), so why so many people are advocating we rush into the Libyan quagmire is puzzling.

We chose to ignore our freely-undertaken obligations under international law when we invaded Iraq, but I think that case actually proves the value of exercising every option for the legitimate use of force before deciding to go rogue.

Since the adoption of the UN Charter, there are precisely two legitimate reasons to use force: an action sanctioned by the Security Council, or an act of legitimate self-defense. The United States signed the UN Charter and became a member of the UN in 1948, so we are bound by the Charter, which in any case has become customary international law.

Article 2(4): All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Like it or not, Qaddafi is the head of state of Libya, and at this point the revolution, while desirable, is an internal matter. So, in order to violate 2(4), we need to turn to chapter VII.

Article 2 (7) Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.

CHAPTER VII
ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION
Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

So, the Security Council can determine the Libyan situation constitutes a threat to the peace or breach of the peace and authorize sanctions (Art. 41) or force (Art. 42).

Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

Any no-fly zone, which would require an armed attack on the Libyan air defenses followed by an aerial invasion and occupation would have to be ordered or authorized by the Security Council to be legal under international law.

The U.S. tried to be scrupulous about following this law during the 90s. Operations Southern and Northern Watch, the no-fly zones over Iraq, were authorized by Security Council resolutions. The no-fly zone in Bosnia was authorized by the Security Council, and Operation Allied Force was authorized by NATO since Security Council action was blocked by Russia.

Our uniltareral adventurism in invading Iraq has not really reflected well on us. I think the U.S. would be well advised to pursue this legally rather than be seen to unilaterally invade yet another Muslim Arab state.

Aside from the legalities, though, I personally participated in or supported the no-fly zones over Northern and Southern Iraq, and Bosnia. In my opinion, they are basically empty gestures. The U.S. and NATO certainly have the military capability to destroy Libyan air defenses and eliminate the Libyan air force--but to what end? Qaddafi has plenty of tanks to suppress the dissidents.

We do not see the Egyptians (who have a capable air force), Tunisians or anyone else leaping at the chance to go to war with Libya in the air. If the African Union is worried about Libya killing its own people, they have some legal authority to intervene. How about the Arab League, which ought to be much more worried about Arabs being slaughtered than the United States? (Although the Arab League seems to always be happy for Arab leaders to slaughter their own populations.) Or how about our Italian allies, who have aided and abetted Qaddafi while he conducted and supported terrorist attacks throughout Europe?

As another post said, "it's not are (sic: our) fight." If we do have a burning desire to support the Libyan insurgents, whatever their political views may be, let's do it the right way through the security council or not at all.

 

JAYDEE001

11:47 PM ET

March 8, 2011

Another call from the "loyal opposition" for another war

We were told it was in our interest to invade Afghanistan and drive out the Taliban - capture Osama bib Laden - give the Afghan people a government that would not harbor terrorists. Now, 10 years later we are stuck there, the Afghan people hate the governmant we gave them, the Taliban control more of the country than we do, and there is no end in sight.

We were told that Saddam Hussein had WMD, that it was in our interests to depose him. We were also told that the Iraqi oil would pay for all the costs of doing that. How has that worked out?

Now, we are told that it is in our interest to institute a no-fly zone, and the proponents imply that it would be easy. Senator Kerry - he must be off his meds. Senator McCain- never met a country he did not want to bomb (Iran) - he left his mind in North Vietnam. But Col. Qaddafi has anti-aircraft missles that would make it very uncomfortable for any pilots enforcing the no-fly. Secretary Gates has pointed out that it would be necessary to destroy his anti-aircraft batteries first, and that would certainll be an act of war. Also, Qaddafi is using helicopters, and they would be much harder for our aircraft to take out.

The most we should do is offer material aid - food and arms - to the rebels trying to unseat Qaddafi. We should never put US pilots or especially troops at risk in North Africa. It is just not rational to do so.

We are always being told that if NATO won't endorse it, no problem, we just go in unilaterally. There we go again - haven't we learned the danger of unilateralism after George Bush's debacles. It's not our war - let the Libyans sort out the problem themselves.

 

SCOOP

4:44 PM ET

March 10, 2011

If not now, when...?

Obama doctrine on intervention tested
By Bradley Klapper and Matthew Lee, AP, Mar 9, 2011

A month shy of his election in 2008, presidential candidate Barack Obama outlined a doctrine for American military force that included crises in which the United States has a 'moral obligation' to intervene. As commander in chief, he soon will have to decide whether Libya fits the bill. Obama is facing the sternest test yet of his philosophy of humanitarian intervention, which he has described as an imperative to prevent atrocities against civilians. Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi’s brutal suppression of protests and crackdown on opponents to his 42-year rule may fall short of Obama’s criteria for military action, but the president’s most senior advisers are to meet Wednesday to outline what steps are realistic and possible to pressure Gadhafi to halt the violence and give up power."

 

JOHNBOY4546

5:44 AM ET

March 9, 2011

Why not just slip in some man-portable AA missiles?

Heck, the Americans might even be able to get a hold of some Russian built shoulder-launched missiles.

Just slip some of those into the eager hands of the Libyan rebels and then watch Gaddafi's airforce refuse to take to the skies....

 

OLIVER CHETTLE

7:00 PM ET

March 9, 2011

Couldn't you have left Israel

Couldn't you have left Israel out of it? This issue is nothing to do with Israel. Italy is far more relevant, but who do you mention? Get over this obsession.

 

SCOOP

8:16 PM ET

March 9, 2011

Libyan rebels call for support from U.S., allies

By Jim Michaels, USA TODAY, Mar 9, 2011

"Libyans battling Moammar Gadhafi are losing patience with the United States and its allies, saying they are missing a key opportunity to topple a dictator and win the gratitude of a new democracy in the Middle East. People in eastern Libya, where rebels are in control of a large chunk of the country, have urged the international community to impose a no-fly zone. Some also want the countries to bomb key targets in the capital of Tripoli. Gadhafi appeared to be keeping up the momentum he has seized in recent days in his fight against rebels trying to move on the capital."

 

Shadow Government is a blog about U.S. foreign policy under the Obama administration, written by experienced policy makers from the loyal opposition and curated by Peter D. Feaver and William Inboden.

Read More