Before policymakers rush to implement a no-fly zone over Libya, several first-order questions must be addressed: Why? What? Where? When? Who? All of these precede the question of how, and must be answered in the context of another question: What is the desired end state? Unclear thus far in the debate is what a no-fly zone would achieve, the specific objectives of the mission, and whether military action in Libya is in America’s vital national interest.
Leaders must determine the primary purpose of any no-fly zone. Would it be to protect civilians, to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian assistance, or as part of a larger effort of regime change? Would it be a shared responsibility among allies or nations? What would be the opportunity cost of establishing a no-fly zone in Libya — specifically, what Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force capabilities would be required for success and what assets would be diverted from other vital national interests?
Washington must know that there is risk involved in moving forward with a no-fly zone, including unintended consequences of military action. There will also be a bill for the taxpayers that must be openly discussed before launch.
If all of these questions are answered clearly and the administration determines that a no-fly zone is of vital importance, the U.S. military has the ability to carry out those orders — primarily with assets the nation did not possess in the early and mid-1990s.
Employing a squadron of stealth fifth-generation F-22s along with other select capabilities would help reduce the need to expend significantly more resources while reducing operational risk. Coercive diplomacy backed by naval presence, decisive air power, and accurate weapons in the region would allow the U.S. and others to negate Libyan air defenses and air forces. The world-class capability inherent in the F-22 also bears a psychological-intimidation factor that sends a clear message that no Libyan aircraft will fly without consequences.
Simply talking about a no-fly zone should highlight the urgent need to recapitalize the U.S. Air Force with modern aircraft (in addition to upgrades of the legacy fleets). Using fifth-generation F-22 aircraft for a no-fly zone mission would allow the Air Force to operate above the Libyan skies with impunity. An F-22 Raptor does not need to destroy enemy air defenses first, because it is not vulnerable to this threat, unlike some fourth-generation aircraft.
To employ military power in an effective manner that supports U.S. interests, the administration should articulate a strategic plan that engages with the Libyan opposition, garners international support, and utilizes appropriate military resources. The bottom line: We must define the purpose before we define the action.
— David Deptula is a former U.S. Air Force deputy chief of staff and commander of the northern no-fly zone in Iraq. Mackenzie Eaglen is a research fellow for national security at the Heritage Foundation.
"We must define the purpose before we define the action." There's the rub--Obama and his bunch have no clue as to what purpose we are pursuing in the Middle East (or elsewhere for that matter).
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusetiredturtle:
Agreed, this is a Presidential matter, a matter to be addressed directly by the Commander-in-Chief. The question is who is going to fill that role for BHO?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe purpose - as far as the current president is concerned - is securing re-election and not letting these pesky furriners derail his efforts to create a socialist utopia here in the U.S.
All questions (what if somebody gets shot down? what if we bomb the wrong people? what if it doesn't work? what if 'daffi wins? which faction of the rebels will end up on top?, etc.) are looked at through that lens - re-election and domestic agenda. Nothing else matters to him.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe US is presently dealing with the latest furor in Afghanistan over the accidental killing of 9 Afghan boys .
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe US led NATO forces were responding to a rocket attack on a FOB and mistakenly targeted the hillside
where the boys were collecting firewood.
Last week, Karzai claimed that NATO forces killed 65 civilians.
The Taliban is capitalizing on these war time accidents by targeting civilians and blaming the US and NATO.
Karzai is becoming increasingly belligerent in blaming the US.
How about we finish the war we are presently waging in Afghanistan and Iraq before we become engaged
on another front ?
President Bush was constantly on the defensive from the Democrats and the media explaining and justifying our military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq when US interests were obvious.
I can't imagine how Barack Obama could justify the very actions he deplored during the Bush years for Libya.
And if his motivation is preventing a humanitarian disaster-Darfur awaits the same intervention.
Likewise the Ivory Coast .
This is just a not so veiled argument for buying more budget busting F-22's. Just like like the $10 million dollar B-2 bombing missions conducted against Iraq - a public relations exercise for an unaffordable weapons system.
Let the Europeans enforce a No-Fly Zone. They have air forces, Libya is in their back yard and they buy Libyan oil.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf we do decide in act, how bout instead of flying around looking for violators and just waiting to get shot at, we just hit every SAM site in the country, crater all the runways and destroy all of their air power on the ground? While we're at it, take out any armored fighting vehicles and artillery.
That way, we get two additional benefits - protecting innocent civilians and reducing available military assets in Libya in case Gadaffi clings to power or islamic fundamentalists take control.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy would it have to be a formal no-fly zone? Couldn't the process start off with special forces working with local rebels to take out aircraft on the ground with mortars?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA few cruise missiles can destroy the runways that these Libyan planes are using. That's (relatively) cheap and projects force without getting troops in harm's way-- something Obama seems to be inclined to do.
"the purpose" for this action would be to prevent one side in this civil war from having an overwhelming imbalance of force.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAttacking Libya would be a sure way to get the rebels to make common cause with Qadaffi.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs a former USAF historian, I don't care if this is a "not so veiled" attempt to reopen the F-22 production lines. The USAF fleet is rapidly aging and it should give pause to any civilian to realize that the current fleet of F-15s and F-16s are not even the top of the line models flown by such nations as the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, amongst others. Amongst all services, the Air Force has suffered decades of procurement neglect. Quite simply, the Ronald Reagan buildup has grayed out. Americans, left and right, take for granted American air dominance in any theater. It's under severe threat. It's time the public be made aware of this and demand Obama and Congress do something about it before Americans are blown out of the skies in aged, outmoded aircraft.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRe: Chris Husing "the Air Force has suffered decades of procurement neglect"
That "neglect" was self-induced. The Air Force and the other Services got in bed with the contractors and designed gold-plated platforms. And coupled those with unrealistic cost and delivery estimates. There was adequate funding available if the insiders had designed to the target cost.
So the result? Tanked procurement portfolios.
The Military-Industrial Complex was the original Too Big To Fail racket. Way before Wall Street.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYeah, yeah, it is so difficult and hard, etc.
I long for the days when we had a President who actually got things done, and not had surrogates make excuses.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI understand there are several prerequisites before this can be implemented:
1) The US President must actually be opposed to the Dictator whose airforce is to be kept on the ground.
2) The US President must have enough backbone to actually act.
Why bother even talking about the military or economic concerns of steps 3+ since we're at least 22 months away from having a President capable of satisfying the above two conditions.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree with part of this, that we do need to define who we're protecting, but this doesn't require a squadron of anything that flies. A Navy DDG or CG sitting about 15 miles off any sizable city will eliminate the possibility of anything flying there above treetop level. Remember, Libya is to all intents a coastal country with all major population centers on the Med coast.
Add one CVN with a normal compliment of E-2s and FA-18s on alert and you get even more. Start with a warning not to fly and maybe a few well-chosen Tomahawks and that's that.
Oh, did someone mention that all of this amounts to a declaration of war? Oh, and do we have a Navy anymore? (I already know that we do NOT have leaders with the cajones to carry this out.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAll of this misses the point: Libya's internal squabbles are none of our business--period.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am a former Navy aviator. Also involved in the air to surface operation in the Gulf of Tonkin. You can blame a President but you would be wrong. The rules of engagement are much more complicated and mostly decided by the Pentagon and it's high level military decision makers. Do you think that a Presisdent acts alone?
We were not allowed to fire on a SAM site until we were absolutely sure it was going to fire first by turning their radar on. This was under the orders of a well known HAWK President Nixon. Go back to your boyscout troops and talk to a Navy, Airforce or Marine attack pilot older than sixty.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell how does the article look with hindsight, Ghadaffi dead, rebels planning elections, loss to US and allies one F-15 disputed as engine failure or shoot down both crew safe, 1 french and 1 US UAV shot down.
Aircraft involved from Europeans were F16, and Tornado and Super Etendard from 1980's as well as more modern Eurofighters and Rafale, none were shot down.
F-22 were not needed or used and were grounded for technical problems for 4 months of the campaign. Gold plated over expensive and unused despite US forces being simultaneously being engaged in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen,
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse