|
New
York Times...
The Case for a No-Fly
Zone
By Nicholas D. Kristof
“This is a pretty easy problem, for crying out loud.”
For all the hand-wringing in Washington about a no-fly zone over Libya,
that’s the verdict of Gen. Merrill McPeak, a former Air Force chief of
staff. He flew more than 6,000 hours, half in fighter aircraft, and
helped oversee no-fly zones in Iraq and the Adriatic, and he’s
currently mystified by what he calls the “wailing and gnashing of
teeth” about imposing such a zone on Libya.
I called General McPeak to get his take on a no-fly zone, and he was
deliciously blunt:
“I can’t imagine an easier military problem,” he said. “If we can’t
impose a no-fly zone over a not even third-rate military power like
Libya, then we ought to take a hell of a lot of our military budget and
spend it on something usable.”
He continued: “Just flying a few jets across the top of the friendlies
would probably be enough to ground the Libyan Air Force, which is the
objective.”
General McPeak added that there would be no need to maintain 24/7
coverage over Libya. As long as the Libyan Air Force knew that there
was some risk of interception, its pilots would be much less motivated
to drop bombs and more inclined to defect.
“If we can’t do this, what can we do?” he asked, adding: “I think it
would have a real impact. It might change their calculation of who
might come out on top. Just the mere announcement of this might have an
impact.”
Along with a no-fly zone, another important step would be to use
American military aircraft to jam Libyan state television and radio
propaganda and Libyan military communications. General McPeak said such
jamming would be “dead easy.”
As he acknowledged, any intervention also has unforeseeable risks, and,
frankly, it’s a good thing when a president counts to 10 before taking
military action. But I hope that President Obama isn’t counting to a
googolplex.
The secretary of defense, Robert Gates, has said that a no-fly zone
would be “a big operation in a big country” and would begin with an
attack on Libyan air defense systems. But General McPeak said that the
no-fly zone would be imposed over those parts of the country that Col.
Muammar el-Qaddafi doesn’t control. That may remove the need to take
out air defense systems pre-emptively, he said. And, in any case, he
noted that the United States operated a no-fly zone over Iraq for more
than a decade without systematically eradicating all Iraqi air defense
systems in that time.
If the Obama administration has exaggerated the risks of a no-fly zone,
it seems to have downplayed the risks of continued passivity. There is
some risk that this ends up like the abortive uprisings in Hungary in
1956, in Czechoslovakia in 1968, or in southern Iraq in 1991.
The tide in Libya seems to have shifted, with the Qaddafi forces
reimposing control over Tripoli and much of western Libya. Now Colonel
Qaddafi is systematically using his air power to gain ground even in
the east. As the International Institute for Strategic Studies, an arms
analysis group in London, noted this week, “The major advantage of the
pro-regime forces at the moment is their ability to deploy air power.”
I’m chilled by a conversation I just had by phone with a Libyan friend
with military connections who has been candid in the past. In our
latest conversation, he sounded as if our conversation was being
closely monitored, and he praised Colonel Qaddafi to the skies. I can’t
tell whether he believed that or had a gun pointed to his head. Either
way, his new tone is an indication that the government has the upper
hand now in Tripoli.
Senator John Kerry, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee,
told me that he tends to favor a no-fly zone — along with the jamming
of communications — as soon as is practical. “The last thing you want
is a 20-year debate on who lost this moment for the Libyan people,” Mr.
Kerry noted.
I was a strong opponent of the Iraq war, but this feels different. We
would not have to send any ground troops to Libya, and a no-fly zone
would be executed at the request of Libyan rebel forces and at the
“demand” of six Arab countries in the gulf. The Arab League may endorse
the no-fly zone as well, and, ideally, Egypt and Tunisia would
contribute bases and planes or perhaps provide search-and-rescue
capabilities.
“I don’t think it’s particularly constructive for our long-term
strategic interests, as well as for our values, to say Qaddafi has to
go,” Senator Kerry told me, “and then allow a delusional,
megalomaniacal, out-of-touch leader to use mercenaries to kill his
people.”
So let’s remember the risks of inaction — and not psych ourselves out.
For crying out loud.
Read it at the New York Times
|
|
|
|
