Why American-Led No-Fly Zone Over Libya is a Very Bad Idea

The American State Department has been testing the waters of international opinion about a no-fly zone over Libyan territory. “A no-fly zone (or no-flight zone) is a territory over which aircraft are not permitted to fly. Such zones are usually set up in a military context, somewhat like a demilitarized zone in the sky” (wikipedia).

The temptation for a no-fly zone is understandable. In typical mad-man fashion, Muammar Gaddafi has resorted to a scorched-earth policy in his deadly effort to put down the protestors seeking his demise. In his crack down, Gaddafi’s forces have used  military planes to bomb “rebels” and civilians alike. Imposing a no-flight zone clearly seems like the humane thing to do if the international community does not wish to watch another bloody humanitarian crisis.

However, the dirty little secret is that imposing a no-fly zone over the sovereign territory of another country is a declaration of war on that country. And that’s where the scenario begins to look really untenable, to say the least. The arguments against a Libyan no-fly zone are hard to shake off.

1. An American-led no-fly zone, even if backed by the United Nations, may sooner or later be regarded at least by some of our Islamic neighbors as the latest attack by pro-Israel America on another Muslim country. Who wants to champion that damage control?

2. Presently, the United States cannot afford, militarily and financially, to spearhead another military mission. There comes a time when we must not take the Super Power accolade too seriously. America is already in such a season. With a new military venture in Libya and the general North Africa region, what happens to the mission in Afghanistan, the impending wind down in Iraq, not to mention the many tentacles of American deployments around the globe? Already the Iraq war is costing Americans about $720 million every day, and by year end 2011, the wars of Afghanistan and Iraq will have sucked $1.29 trillion from the United States.

3. Foreign military attack on Libya will steal credit from the Libyan people as the real heroes in the fall of Gaddafi. A civil war is always a gory thing, but it has proven to be a necessary glitch in the birth canal of freedom, as many Western nations know. It took the United States a civil war to end slavery and win emancipation for blacks. It was bloody, but the blood was a price worth the prize.

4. There may be other more effective, less costly options than imposing a no-flight zone over Libya. The freezing of Gaddafi-linked assets must have some impact, if not immediately. A real arms embargo, a total blockage that cuts off all supply of ammunition to Gaddafi’s forces will in time cripple the dictator’s ability to kill Libyans. Disrupt the pipelines that Gaddafi depends on to fuel his military planes and other weapons of warfare. Help vulnerable Libyans flee as well as give substantial aid to Sudan and other neighboring countries that take in Libyan refugees. Promote efforts for Libyan war victims to get easy asylum or protected status in other countries. Find ways to replenish the arms of the opposition forces that are seeking to topple Gaddafi; providing them some military intelligence, coaching/training, and other underhanded assistance could go a long way.

With so many other options “on the table”, why should American politicians rush to worsen or mess up another crisis that may take a decade or longer to clean up? When will America learn that the military option has been the primary bleeder of American resources in the last two decades? How can we cut spending as our politicians are yelling when they cannot pass up the chance to initiate new military missions?

Madam US Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton, take Libyan no-fly zone off the table now. Don't even use the words to threaten Gaddafi, because he may actually be wishing for it to cast himself as David in his fight against Goliath (America). ~mogama~