A No-Fly Zone for Libya? Posted by Jacob Stokes

The world is looking for a proper response to the crisis in Libya. With limited leverage, what will stop Muammar Qaddafi from continuing to murder his own people?

John Kerry has led the way among elected officials in proposing specific responses. ICG has offered similiar recommendations. My fellow DAer Shadi Hamid has a piece over at Slate calling for NATO to "quickly move to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya, both to send a strong message to the regime and to prevent the use of helicopters and planes to bomb and strafe civilians." And Marc Lynch made similiar calls earlier in the week.

Before any action is taken, it's essential to think through implications. Mark Leon Goldberg over at UN Dispatch examines some of the potential limitations of a no-fly zone:

This is not to say there is no utility in trying to enforce one over Libya—as Marc Lynch says, it could be one of several demonstrations of the resolve of the international community (along with multilateral sanctions and, perhaps, a Security Council referral to the ICC.) But we should not delude ourselves into thinking that a no-fly zone is an effective humanitarian response to a mass slaughter event. It is a gesture. Not a response.

If stopping a slaughter is our top priority, then a more robust response is probably required. That means not just preventing airplanes and attack helicopters from flying over Libya, but defeating the Libyan military infrastructure that is perpetrating the violence. The word for that is war.

Fred Kaplan, also at Slate, asks some further instructive questions.

Presumably this zone would be enforced by U.S. or NATO combat planes. It's a feasible idea. The cease-fire at the end of the 1991 Gulf War imposed a no-fly zone over Iraq, and it was maintained for the entire 12 years until Saddam Hussein's ouster—through, and despite, many Iraqi attempts (all unsuccessful) to shoot down the planes.

But if any leaders sent air power over Libya, they would first have to calculate how far they'd be willing to go. Would they bomb Libya's airfields? If Qaddafi stopped strafing the crowds and sent tanks against them instead, would they bomb the tanks? And if that didn't halt the oppression, would they send in ground troops? (By any measure, this last step would probably be a very bad idea.)

Both Goldberg and Kaplan wonder whether a no-fly zone can be effective if the U.S. and/or NATO aren't ready to subsequently intervene with troops on the ground. This is not to say that a no-fly zone should be off the table. But as with all questions of intervention, answering "how does this end?" is a must.

A last note: The pilots who were going to defect may have all done so by now, and regime has probably gotten wise and started more vigorously loyalty-testing pilots. But if there are still pilots who want to defect -- taking valuable hardware with them -- what happens to them if there's a no-fly zone?

Comments

[Julian Schoffel]

Thanks for the tip-I'm loving that doing this allows me to Links Of London distinguish my comments from my visitors' comments!

[Rugby Shirts]

Most of the time whenever signs of war happens in other countries we can't help but fear because we get to be involved always. How horrible the feeling is of having someone you love fight for something you aren't sure about.

[Frontline Plus]

The cease-fire at the end of the 1991 Gulf War imposed a no-fly zone over Iraq, and it was maintained for the entire 12 years until Saddam Hussein's ouster—through, and despite, many Iraqi attempts (all unsuccessful) to shoot down the planes.

[DJF]

“”””The cease-fire at the end of the 1991 Gulf War imposed a no-fly zone over Iraq””

No, it was not part of the cease fire. The US and Britain imposed it on their own.

[chaussures louboutin]

remercions de votre blog, vous soutenir, vous souhaite une belle journée!

[New York Yankees hats]

Most of the time whenever signs of war happens in other countries we can't help but fear because we get to be involved always. How horrible the feeling is of having someone you love fight for something you aren't sure about.

[mahjong]

It was maintained for the entire 12 years until Saddam Hussein's ouster—through, and despite, many Iraqi attempts (all unsuccessful) to shoot down the planes. These all are great to know about it.

[ZoomBits]

These all can be maintained so many things which is great and cool to know about it. That can be performs so many things which is great to shut down the pulls.

[Merchant Cash Advance]

In the case of Libya a no fly zone is essential to stop Gadhafi from destroying whatever is left of ammunition and arms bases belonging to anti- government forces. The reason Gadhafi is not attacking his own people is because anti-government forces are just as strong if not stronger and will retaliate with equal force. Once Gadhafi weakens those forces through airstrikes he will then do as he pleases including a genocide of the likes the world has never seen . The recent sanction imposed by the UN is a Joke and will do nothing to improve the situation except to make the west be perceived as siding on the right side of history, when in fact behind closed doors they know the faster ghadafi falls the more likely this revolution will spread across the middles east and topple pro western regimes including the likes of Saudi Arabia and therefore disruption the grip the west has on middle eastern oil and send western economies into limbo.
A no fly zone should come in effect asap and if it is not Libyans including all Arabs will hold the west responsible once it has been proven “a no fly zone” could have saved lives.
Merchant Cash Advance

[冷夜]

zone would be enforced by U.S. or NATO combat planes. It's a feasible idea. The cease-fire at the end of the 1991 Gulf War imposed a no-fly zone over Iraq, and it was maintained for the entire 12 years until Saddam Hussein's ouster—through, and despite, m