With reports that the Gaddafi regime — or what’s left of it — has effected the indiscriminate massacre of Libyan civilians, up to and including air strikes in Tripoli and the planned carpet-bombing of Benghazi, the suggestion that President Obama establish a “no-fly zone” above Libya has begun popping up on social media.
I don’t say this lightly, but I think POTUS must so act. U.S. Sixth Fleet under AFRICOM may or may not have a carrier “chopped” (that is, assigned) to it at the moment (Ed Morrissey has a good post on why it’s so hard to pin down where our carriers are at a given moment), but it appears that one or several aircraft carriers are within striking distance.
Gaddafi’s bombers must be grounded.
UPDATE: As of the latest (admittedly dated) stratfor update, CVN-65 is just south of the Suez Canal, and CVN-70 is in the Arabian Sea and could conceivably be maneuvered into range in a matter of hours. Also, probably a coincidence, but CVN-65 has shut down outgoing e-mail messages from crewmen, according to Facebook.
We are not the policeman of the world. We do not have the power to save every civilian life threatened by madmen and dictators. The costs of intervening militarily within any country's borders are exceedingly high. While sometimes justified (and I supported and support the Iraq and Afghanistan wars), they must be rare indeed because of the many consequences which flow from doing so.
Intervention in Libya would be used by al Qaeda as further evidence of our involvement in Muslim affairs. It would leave us responsible for any accidental civilian deaths caused as a result of our operations. It would, frankly, leave us responsible in the eyes of many for any deaths caused by Qaddafi's forces which we failed to prevent. To civilians on the ground, it would seem very odd that we will intervene to save them from death from planes, but will not intervene to save them from death from artillery or tanks or ordinary soldiers.
We must also consider the long-term impact such an intervention would have on the very concept of national sovereignty, and how that would impact our relationships with every other less-than-free nation in the world. And we'd have to then decide what the criteria is for future such interventions. Do we intervene when the death toll reaches 100, 1000, 1,000,000? At what point do we say, NOW we care about the deaths that we didn't care about before?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUm, great idea, but this bunch in the White House will probably have to set up a Blue Ribbon Panel to study the issue for a year or two, then conduct a meeting with "breakout sessions" to write down the obvious on flipchart sheets. Only then will we sorta, kinda recommend legislation to ground Gaddafi's bombers.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is a good reminder of why "Quantity has a quality all its own." We have to few aircraft carriers. We have to few amphibious ships loaded with Marines ready to intervene. We have to few ships of all types. The best jobs program the US could have would be to start cutting steel to double the size of the Navy. It is smaller than it has been since 1916. No matter how good each platform is, and some like the LCS are less than fully combat survivable, no ship can be in more than one place at a time.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy is this any concern of ours?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe U.S. as rescuer again...
What about all those Arab air forces that fly American stuff?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhile I don't want to see any innocent people get killed, I don't think the U.S. should intervene military -- and thus place our own personnel in harm's way -- at the mere outbreak of internal hostilities within a another sovereign state's borders. The world is a dangerous enough place as it is without impulsively meeting every reported instance of "massacre" with a dose of American firepower.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe no longer have the money to do things like this. We conservatives talk a big game about making the necessary sacrifices to cut budgets, but never examine our own expensive need to be the policemen and freedom fighters of the world. Cutting entitlements will be a painful sacrifice we are asking the nation to make, and I think cutting our military presence worldwide is a painful sacrifice we as conservatives must make.
Interventionist counter the argument by saying that the risk to world stability are too great. The favorite argument being that nukes could fall into the wrong hands. That argument works for the break-up of the Soviet Union or other advanced regimes, but how does it apply to Libya who already gave us their nuclear program.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAdditionally, our involvement would remove a great deal of moral clarity, and could result in MORE, rather than fewer civilian deaths. At least 2 pilots have refused orders and defected. If American planes were in the air over sovereign Libyan ground, would pilots still defect, or would our involvement make it easier for those in power to sway the pilots into continuing the attacks using arguments based on patriotism and anti-Americanism?
Right now, the pilots in the skies are bad guys brutally attacking their own people. The second our Navy interferes, at least some of those same pilots are no longer bad guys, but members of a patriotic resistance against American imperialism.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseShooting down ten or twelve jets intent on bombing civilians on orders of a dictator who also ordered mass murder on American citizens should always be considered a morale boost for our military and for our country.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTwo Libyan fighter pilots have defected with their planes rather than drop bombs. Hopefully that will be the norm.
Also, Pat and Broccoli... wow. Really? Occupation is not being discussed here, but rather a rather simple matter of grounding a pitiful (by our standards) air force in order to make sure an enemy regime crumbles. The expense of such an operation would be a pittance compared to the good it would accomplish.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt probably would not be a bad idea if it is possible. It would be good PR and blunt the bumbling of the jug-eared clod-hopper. It is relatively low risk. Whatever replaces that lunatic is no likely to be worse.
Otherwise, Libya's main problem is it is full of Libyans. There's no fixing that problem.
So when we've cleared the skies and the Libyian army begins slaughtering innocents hand-to-hand, are we going to unleash the Marines?
No thanks Mr. Foster.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy is it any of our business when Libyans kill each other? Really, why?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCan't intervene with the Tea Party having this much influence now. With the Republicans now split and the Dems being natural pansies, the world is a far more dangerous place than it was when Bush was President.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow big is the Libyan air force?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCould you imagine being an air force pilot and being ordered to strafe civilians in your own country? What's amazing is that, so far, only 2 Libyan pilots have defected.
This would be an outstanding use of US airpower, Libya's air force should be grounded until these revolts play out, one way or the other.
While they're there, might as well take the opportunity to dispense some justice to the Lockerbie bomber.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Ditch: You are discounting the enormous cost of having a military presence able to react to a situation in Libya in the first place.
External Link
I stopped counting at 70 military installations overseas.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Whatever replaces that lunatic is no likely to be worse."
Are you so sure, ZMan?
The Muslim Brotherhood and its "offshoots," including Al-Q, have been banned for decades within Libya (something that is sure to change with his fall). In addition, there is no democratic structure or even lax contingency in place to replace Gadaffi.
While I am in no way shape or form advocating keeping this genocidal madman in place, ridding oneself of one form of darkness does not guarantee light at the end of the tunnel. It could equal nothing more then darkness continued, but in a far different form.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSorry, but no. Our interest trumps the interest of people of Libya. And it is absolutely not in our interest to do this. We will get no gratitude whatsoever. I am sorry for the Libyan people (and you world-policemen, feel free to send your money or go there to help), but they need to settle this on their own.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusethis is a real moral quandary... I'm more or less a non-interventionist that is somewhat disillusioned with what is in my opinion an over extended military presence overseas.
If we have the means and will to save maybe tens of thousands by destroying the Libyan Air Force do we do it? Can we destroy Gaddafi once and for all? Maybe a belated 100th Birthday gift for President Reagan.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse