No-Fly for Libya goes a-glimmering

There are some serious issues that need to be faced before the United States or its allies establish a no-fly regime over Libya by that country's air force. Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron called for such a regime to be established just this week, but rapidly beat a retreat when US President Barack Obama did not join the chorus and the proposal drew tepid endorsement, at best, from Britain's military chiefs.

Britain has backtracked from its belligerent military stance over Libya after the Obama administration publicly distanced itself from David Cameron's suggestion that Nato should establish a no-fly zone over the country and that rebel forces should be armed.

As senior British military sources expressed concern that Downing Street appeared to be overlooking the dangers of being sucked into a long and potentially dangerous operation, the prime minister said Britain would go no further than contacting the rebel forces at this stage.

US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates testified to a Congressional subcommittee,

"Let's call a spade a spade," Gates said at a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing. "A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya to destroy the air defenses."

He added that it couldn't be done by a single aircraft carrier off the coast.

"It's a big operation in a big country," Gates said.

On top of that, Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the same subcommittee that the Pentagon has no confirmation that Libyan strongman Muammar al Qaddafi is using his air force to kill civilians.

Adm. Mullen seems unaware that Moammar Qaddafi's son, Saif al-Islam Qaddafi, has confirmed air raids against rebels at Brega.

In an interview with Sky News, Saif said: "First of all the bombs (were) just to frighten them to go away. Not to kill them."

Well, okay then!

I do not understand why Secretary Gates told Congress that major, sustained attacks against Libya's air defenses and associated infrastructure would be necessary. Perhaps he envisions a mission of destroying Libya's air force and/or constant patrolling above Libya in the same way we and the UK patrolled above Iraq for almost 10 years after the Gulf War. But that would be insane, frankly.

No, if I was the Commander in Chief, my mission assignment to DOD would be simply stated: "You will employ the air forces of the United States, in coordination with allied forces, to prevent the Libyan air force from using its aircraft to attack Libyan opposition forces or civilians."

That's it. I believe that if the mission is so stated, the military problem of rendering Libya's air force incapable of attacking Libyan rebels and demonstrators actually is not very complex.

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.

Or turn the runway-neutralization mission over to the US Air Force's 509th Bomb Wing with its B2 Stealth bombers. I think Libya's air defenses threat would be pretty much nil.

However, the military problem is not the main one. As with most employments of the blunt national instrument of military force, the real problem is, "what next?" Joshua Keating explains succinctly that simply immobilizing Libyan jets might accomplish very little in suppressing Qaddafi's murderous operations against his own people.

In any case, while a no-fly zone could presumably prevent Qaddafi's planes from firing on protesters or rebel forces, it would do nothing to stop his ground forces and mercenaries from continuing their assault. Given the limited utility then, the U.S. and its allies must now decide if all the trouble involved in setting up a zone -- including inevitable questions of legality -- are worth the risk.

That is indeed a problem, but not the only one and not really even the main one, which is this, I think:

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?

It could be argued that if our use of force makes it possible for the rebels to prevail, then we will have truck with the next Libyan government that will enable us to shape its nature. My response: Well, Herr von Bismarck, I thought you died long ago and took Realpolitik with you. Such an expectation is the triumph of naive hope over centuries of experience in northern Africa. To wit:

Dubai: The Libya Revolution Council in Benghazi on Monday warned the US against interfering in the political future of the country and said young revolutionaries will consider hostile any act or attempt to dictate to them who the future leader of the country should be.

"There are indications about US efforts to find a new leadership for Libya that is close to the west or accepted by them. Libyans inside the country and abroad will consider such attempts hostile acts against Libyans and attempts to shape the political system in the future will not be tolerated," Ahmad Al Bara'asi, head of media at the newly formed revolutionary council, told Gulf News.

Who, exactly, is the "Libya Revolution Council?" We don't really know. However, today the imperative to intervene (if there ever really was one) may have passed. Qadaffi and his Venezuelan soulmate, Hugo Chavez, have apparently come up with a plan to end the war.

The Venezuelan plan would involve a commission from Latin America, Europe and the Middle East, along with talks between Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi and opposition forces. 

"Libya accepts the proposal to work for a negotiated end to the conflict accompanied by an international commission. Venezuela will continue its contacts in the Arab world and elsewhere to find formulas for peace in Libya," Venezuela's Information Minister Andres Izzara tells Reuters.

Al-Jazeera reports that the plan was struck between Qaddafi and Chavez.

Unsurprisingly, "the chairman of the rebel National Libyan Council rejected proposed talks with Qaddafi," according to reports, whose spokesman said, "We will never negotiate with him."

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.