Libya: Damned if you do and damned if you don't

There are many voices being raised in the U.S. that the U.S. should enforce a no-fly zone over Libya to reduce Gaddafi's advantage over the opposition.

One of these is Nicholas Kristof, "The Case for a No-Fly Zone Over Libya", New York Times, 2011-03-09.

On the other hand, they are those who give many arguments for the long-term consequences of  unilateral action, "Kicking the Intervention Habit", Richard Falk, Al-Jazeera, 2010-03-10.

Count me as one of the sympathizers of a no-fly zone, yet I really hesitate because of the long-term damage to U.S. prestige and influence.  What right does a country thousands of miles away have to determine military action that is not threatening its own shores?  What arrogance to think that the U.S. military is the only one capable of acting?

Wouldn't the European Union be a more appropriate actor than the U.S.?  Don't France, Germany, and the U.K. have sufficient capability to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya?  Even then, it will be interpreted by many in the Arab world as another example of colonialism.

If any no-fly zone were to be enforced, it would have to come from an Arab country.  Is it in the interest of the current governments of Tunisia and Egypt to do so?  They are the ones who had to deal with the thousands of refugees fleeing Libya.  Is not Egypt getting over $50 billion per year in military aid?  Is that going into paper airplanes?

I think the only course of action for the U.S. is to have very private talks with the Egyptians as to what the latter can and should do.

Maybe there is one other thing the U.S. can do.  If the embargo on Libya is rewritten to exempt the opposition government, then by all means ship arms, food, and other supplies into Benghazi and other safe ports.  If the U.S. could supply Stinger missiles to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan with disastrous effects on Soviet forces, could and should it supply them to the opposition in Libya, either directly or through a surrogate?

Calls for action from those who can do nothing

Government leaders from around the world are saying that the actions of Gaddafi of Libya are unacceptable, including Hilary Clinton and Ban Ki-Moon.  However, many commentators from bloggers to the Wall Street Journal are calling for more concrete action.

But what can any government do without making matters worse?

First, they have to get all their citizens out of Libya safely.  There are many thousands from dozens of countries who have to not only get to an airport or a harbor, but the countries have to supply sufficient craft at places where they won't be attacked by pro-Gaddafi supporters.

Second, if they did supply limited military forces at these embarkation points, would that very act put their countrymen in even more danger?  When dealing with delusional leaders, one does have to expect the worse.

Third, if they did invade beyond the embarkation points, would that unleash an even bigger massacre of civilians, Libyans and foreigners alike?

About the only military action would have to be from the Arab League, and many of the members have their own upheavals to deal with.

That leaves only the Libyan Army to resolve the problem.  We are starting to see many units join "the people".  How effective they will be outside the areas that "the people" control remains to be seen.

As more and more cities come under control of anti-Gaddafi groups, we may see an acceleration towards a conclusion favorable to these groups.

Meanwhile, really the best others outside Libya can do is keep up the verbal pressure, make sure information flows out of Libya, and make sure some information gets back in.