No Fly Zone #2

It's dangerous: Like the no-fly zone in Iraq from 1991-2003,the enforcement of such a policy would be run by United States and it junior partner, the British. It means war: a no-fly zone is worthless unless the United States is prepared to back it up with overwheling miliary force.

Obama administration officials held talks with European and other allied governments as they readied plans for the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya to prevent further killings of civilians by forces loyal to Colonel Qaddafi.They were also discussing whether the American military could disrupt communications to prevent Colonel Qaddafi from broadcasting in Libya. In addition, the administration was looking at whether the military could be used to set up a corridor in neighboring Tunisia or Egypt to assist refugees.(CNN)

Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of Italy signed Italy's treaty with Libya in August 2008, calls on Italy to pay Libya $5 billion over 20 years. In, Libya pledged to help block the flow of illegal immigrants to Italy. But the treaty also contains clause complicated Italy's position in the event of international military intervention in Libya. In it' Italy pledges not to use "direct or indirect" military force against Libya, or to allow the use of it's territory. There are several United States and NATO bases in Italy. An Italian Foreign Ministry spokesman -noted that Italy had suspended the treaty,not revoked it.

I take arguments for a no-fly zone based on more traditional considerations of national interest more seriously. America does have an important interest in secuing the supply of oil from the Middle East. Libyan oil is not critical to our supply, however, and this operation does not appear to be an attempt to send a signal about the need to stabilize oil flow. We also have an interst in making sure that Middle East governments do not support terrorism, especially if those governments also have active nuclear programs. Most would rather see us convey a clear message that a resumption of terror sponsorship and/or a nuclear program would not be tolerated,than to have us risk a complex intervention.(Time world Magazine)

So I oppose the establishment of a no-fly/no-drive zone, which is tantamount to a commitment to overthrow Qaddafi with grounds troops, if necessary. Shoul air attacks fail to work, we either go in and finish the job with troops, or make ourselves look weak by initiating a military action we cannot or will not carry through to a favorable conclusion. I don't think the risks are worth it.



March 18, 2011|By Paul Armstrong, CNN
Mar. 19, 2011 |Vivienne Walt / Paris ,Time World Magazine