He contradicted Defence Secretary Robert Gates, who condemned "loose talk" about a no-fly zone last week, saying it amounted to military intervention. "A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya to destroy the air defences," Dr Gates told a congressional committee hearing.Well, give the 2004 Democrat presidential nominee credit, although a little late to the party. I wrote six days ago.
Speaking on CBS, Senator Kerry said: "That's actually not the only option for what one could do. One could crater the airports and the runways and leave them incapable of using them for a period of time."
Crater their runways from one end to the other and the problem is solved. Carriers, while desirable, useful and highly symbolic for long-term commitment, are not necessary to get this job done. Sky park a few Predator UAVs above the airfields so that if Libyan engineers try to repair the craters, we will know immediately - and the Predators can launch disincentives. For that matter, we can crater the runways again and maybe bomb a few pilots' barracks as encouragement.Unlike the senator, I am not gung-ho about the mission - my post was about the military problem itself, not on whether it would be wise to do it. In fact, I would not support that action for reasons I outlined here:
Bombing Libya, even as comparatively "gently" as merely cratering its bases' runways, is also unambiguously an act of war, period. It absolutely places the United States on the side of the rebels, in coercive opposition to their foes. But who are the rebels? Frankly, we just don't know enough about them to be confident that once they gain power they will be much of an improvement over Qaddafi. The "rebel alliance" (sorry, Mr. Lucas!) is mostly an inchoate alliance of convenience among a number of anti-Qaddafi groups. But once Qaddafi falls - if he does fall - who will replace him and what will they be for? ...Senator John McCain weighed in, too,
Libya is embroiled in civil war. While there is certainly no reason to shed a tear for Qaddafi's passing, if he does, I see no particular reason to align ourselves with his potential successor(s), whomever he/they turn out to be. Despite the breathless media characterizations of the demonstrators and newly-formed rebel force as "pro-democracy," there is no evidence that that is what they are. They are justifiably anti-Qaddafi, but that sure doesn't make them democrats (although one may hope).
If the US and its allies are not willing to go all the way and actually effect regime change in Libya, a no-fly operation is pointless. But downfalling Qaddafi will be harder than we might think and require more commitment of treasure and blood than we should be willing to make.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, agreed that sending in ground troops would be an inappropriate display by the U.S., but implementing a no-fly zone would not be difficult because Libya's air defenses "are somewhat antiquated."McCain is clearly endorsing using military violence mostly as a symbol: to "signal" Qaddafi. His comments are a ringing endorsement of halfway measures (if even halfway) that surely our experience of the last decade should convince us not to do.
Speaking on ABC's "This Week," McCain said it would send a signal to the embattled Qaddafi "that the president is serious when he says we need for Qaddafi to go. And also, it would be encouraging to the resistance, who are certainly outgunned from the air."
At Foreign Policy, Thomas Ricks has some read-worthy posts. Start with, "Six considerations for discussing the imposition of a Libyan no-fly zone," which posits some very good questions that should be answered before launching the first airplane.
The read, "What Obama needs to do with Libya -- and with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, today," which looks at other options.
No comments:
Post a Comment