No-Go

A no-fly zone over Libya will not be easy or painless.

BY MICAH ZENKO | MARCH 4, 2011

More saliently, a military operation would not serve U.S. interests. Even a multinational intervention would play into Qaddafi's hand by supporting his narrative of Libya under siege by foreigners with ulterior motives. Most importantly, the United States cannot and should not take responsibility for dismantling and subsequently reconstructing a dysfunctional petrostate with no legacy of democratic governance.

Of course, we've been here before. The United States led an NFZ over northern and southern Iraq for much of the 1990s and until the 2003 invasion. Soon after they were imposed, in 1992, a U.S. official mused hopefully, "How long do you think [Saddam Hussein] could last within just four parallels?" The answer was 11 years, and his removal was only accomplished through a massive invasion of 150,000 ground troops.

Saddam Hussein had many enemies that were protected by the NFZs -- when it came to aircraft attack. On Iraqi soil, however, the NFZ was useless against Saddam's ground forces. For years after the failed Shiite uprising in 1991, Saddam initiated a brutal counterinsurgency campaign in the south, building roadways into the marshlands to bring artillery within range of Shia insurgents, conducting cordon operations in suspected rebel areas, and draining marshes to eliminate places to hide.

In the north, during a short-lived Kurdish uprising in 1996, Saddam marshaled two Republican Guard and three regular army divisions to form a battle group of 40,000 troops, 300 tanks, and 300 artillery pieces. As U.S. and British warplanes -- charged with enforcing the NFZ -- circled overhead, the Iraqi ground forces crushed the uprising in under a week. 

This last anecdote speaks to the impossibility of a limited intervention when a despotic leader will do anything to hold onto power. If the United States initiated an NFZ, how would pilots react to massacres unfolding before their eyes? No matter how noble the intention of protecting Libyans, the United States must be realistic about the American appetite for intervention and what it would realistically entail. Indeed, only 12 percent of Americans support a military intervention, while 38 percent support an NFZ.

Policymakers have mistaken a tactic for a strategy in this debate. Before an NFZ or any other military options are considered, the Obama administration must articulate what the U.S. strategy toward Libya is. Then, we can debate the costs and consequences of what it will take to achieve it.

FILES/AFP/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS: NATIONAL SECURITY
 

Micah Zenko is a fellow in the Center for Preventive Action at the Council on Foreign Relations and author of Between Threats and War. You can follow him on Twitter at @MicahZenko.

 

REVELL

10:08 PM ET

March 4, 2011

Aircraft no longer in service

These aircraft in the photo are no longer in service:
Grumman F-14 Tomcat
Lockheed S-3 Viking
Grumman A-6E Intruder

 

AIRFOIL

10:11 PM ET

March 4, 2011

airfoil

Article should read:
US considers recommissioning F-14's to establish
no-fly zone over Libya.
It was supposed to be a secret, but I guess half the
world has seen the article by now.

The aircraft in the picture, the ones from "Top Gun",
We don't use them any more.

 

JNELSON631

10:13 PM ET

March 4, 2011

Whatever happened to self

Whatever happened to self determination. If the people of Libyia really want him gone, then let them do it. Then accept whomever they chose to lead.

 

HURRICANEWARNING

10:16 PM ET

March 4, 2011

thankgod someone is writing

thankgod someone is writing about the folly of military intervention in foreign revolution when none of our national interests are at stake. The last thing we need is another bungled quagmire. Please keep the neocons away from the microphone.

 

DDSNAIK

2:26 PM ET

March 7, 2011

Hear ye, hear ye

Could not have said it any better myself and won't try

 

BIGZEEZ

12:03 AM ET

March 6, 2011

No brainer

If the US had not invaded Iraq and botched Afghanistan this would have been a no brainer. This is a fight where the US can show some true leadership and live up to its pursuit of freedom in the Arab world. It is safer to stand on the sidelines, but it is not projecting the power and influence thats been waning since Iraq.

 

DLAKERGUY

10:24 PM ET

March 6, 2011

in response to BIGZEEZ

The U.S. should show their leadership in restraint. The reason the U.N. exists today is to deal with these types of situations. That does include the United States, however, it also includes the support of many other nations at the same time. The situation in Libya is not a direct threat to the United States, so that means the United States should not intervene militarily. This only further undermines our other (unconstitutional) wars in the Middle East. The correct response is a United Nations led no-fly-zone or other humanitarian oriented force centered around protection of the Libyan people.