• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • A No-Fly Zone over Libya? Take a Deep Breath First

    F-22

    What to do about Libya? First of all, we need to be clear about our national interests. Since we have lived with the Muammar Qadhafi regime for years—and particularly because Libya gave up its weapons of mass destruction program—there is no immediate vital national interest requiring the use of force. That could change. Qadhafi could establish links with terrorist groups that threaten America. He could take Americans hostage or attack our citizens and assets or those of our allies. He could threaten the region’s oil supplies. Any one or a combination of these actions could warrant a military response of some kind.

    Of course, the United States has other interests besides security in Libya and the region. In the long run, we would like to see Libya evolve into a more open, free, and democratic society. However, in the short run, especially with a civil war raging, that appears not to be a near-term prospect. Of course, any actions we take now may influence this outcome, but that is not the immediate question on the table. We should not automatically assume that any action we take, no matter how well intentioned, will lead to that outcome.

    Instead, we are left with the urgent desire to give the appearance of “doing something.” On that list of tactical actions are whether to impose a no-fly zone or recognize the rebel council, whether to arm and supply the rebels, and whether and how to manage these actions through NATO or the United Nations Security Council.

    Imposing a no-fly zone is military action. People would die at the hand of U.S. forces, and it implies a military and political commitment of the U.S. to a certain outcome. It is not a cost-free or easy measure with few risks. The tactical question is whether it would accomplish the advertised goal of concretely aiding the rebels and protecting the civilian population. The answer to that question is “probably not.” But the strategic question—the one that pertains to our vital interest—is whether such an action fits our vital interests.

    Right now it does not, mainly because none of the vital interests listed above are directly and adversely affected. But there are too many open tactical questions as well. Is a no-fly zone a tacit recognition of the rebel’s new “Interim Transitional National Council,” which we have not officially recognized yet? If not, could we be giving military backing to a group that may not deserve our backing? Is it intended to signal a military commitment to come to the aid of the rebels and the civilian population if the no-fly zone fails and massacres or military setbacks occur? That is eventually what happened in Iraq and Bosnia. The U.S. and NATO launched massive air and, in the case of Iraq, ground campaigns partly because the no-fly zones were failures. At the very least, we must understand that trying to impose a no-fly zone over Libya could commit us to a similar course.

    We should know soon whether the rebel council deserves our recognition. If it does, then we should consider providing supplies and even arms—but only under four conditions:
    1.    The target of our military support is limited to the Qaddafi regime;
    2.    The rebels are free of extremist elements and are fully cooperative with us;
    3.    We rule out supplying arms that could pose a potent threat if they end up in the hands of terrorists (“Stinger” anti-aircraft missiles, for example); and
    4.    We require the rebel chain of command to take precautions to ensure that the weapons we supplied to them are not sold or diverted to other groups.

    The United States is caught in the middle of a geopolitical storm in the Middle East. We are tugged in two opposition directions. One is to show leadership and support the rise of freedom. The other is to avoid the mistakes of the past and to prevent backlashes. True leadership is navigating between these poles and coming out with the right outcome in the end.

    Leadership is not posturing or taking seemingly bold decisions that turn out to be failures. The Obama Administration would appear to be exercising caution for the reasons I outline here, but they seem to be more confused than cautious. Torn between a Pentagon reluctant to use force and advisors and politicians counseling immediate action, the Administration looks paralyzed.

    And the results are predictably mixed signals. The Administration claims that Qadhafi must go but does not provide the means to that end. It has raised expectations of greater U.S. action at the same time it has balked from that action.

    This is the worst of all worlds. People in the Middle East (not to mention Americans) are rightly confused by the mismatch between the Administration’s rhetoric and actions. A wiser strategy would be to not let our condemnation of Qadhafi’s actions box us into specific military actions. But to fill the vacuum of inaction the President has created, he must be loud and clear on what the purpose of the caution is. Right now it looks like confusion, whereas it must be made clear that specific diplomatic and even military preparatory actions are part of a long-term strategy.

    The only way to get ahead of this game is to state flatly and repeatedly that America’s primary military goal in Libya is to protect the security of its citizens and its interests in the region. If Americans are harmed or taken hostage, or if terrorists take advantage, or oil supplies are endangered, then we must act. While we cannot rule out categorically that we would not use force for humanitarian purposes, we also need not make that decision now. There are other ways to provide humanitarian relief—such as relying on international organizations or regional NGOs—than rushing U.S. soldiers into no-win danger zones the way we did in Somalia in the 1990s. Instead of embarking on “feel good,” palliative, and possibly ineffective measures like no-fly zones, we should be working hard to find out whether the rebels are people we can work with and, if so, devising a strategy to aid them.

    There is no doubt that the removal of Qadhafi and the emergence of a pro-Western regime would be good for America and the world. But frankly, we have no idea at this point that any action we take will lead to that outcome. It’s too early to jump to military conclusions while events on the ground are so uncertain and fluid. If, after the picture becomes clearer and we learn that specific actions—including military ones—will lead to that outcome, then we should consider them.

    Posted in International [slideshow_deploy]

    5 Responses to A No-Fly Zone over Libya? Take a Deep Breath First

    1. Paul J. Sebastian, P says:

      I fully agree with the sage advice provided in the title, i.e, to "take a deep breath." Also, he is one of the seemingly rare voices that makes it clear that a no-fly zone is a military action, pure and simple. Unfortunately, the subsequent conditions under which Mr. Holmes lists as requiring answers before taking either another deep breath or embarking on intervention are questionable at best and in fact, too easy for our politicians to check off as "done" and then committing to intervention: First, "The target of our military support is limited to the Qaddafi regime." Agreed, just as our helicopter gunships are limited to striking terrorists, not children gathering firewood. "Limit" and "military" do not go well together and since the regime's forces are not exactly wearing uniforms and moving in and around "liberation" forces, this will get ugly, quickly. Second: "The rebels are free of extremist elements and are fully cooperative with us." Are there any non-extremist elements in the region? Just how reasonable or feasible is this condition? Cooperative? Please, they want support first, would say anything first, and then worry about the repurcussions later, and who's to blame them? Third: "We rule out supplying arms that could pose a potent threat if they end up in the hands of terrorists (“Stinger” anti-aircraft missiles, for example." World War I-era weapons are still killing people around the world (see a recent article in Foreign Affairs). A sniper killing a Marine with an Enfield rifle is as bad as a Taliban bringing down a helicopter with a Stinger missile. "Weapons" = "Threat" period. Lastly, "We require the rebel chain of command to take precautions to ensure that the weapons we supplied to them are not sold or diverted to other groups." Seriously? The chain of command would have enough to do simply waging whatever type of action our political class will ultimately empower them to undertake. The black market in arms is proof alone that all the accounting and precautions available cannot prevent weapons finding their way into hands of those for whom they were unintended. Holmes then states that: "The only way to get ahead of this game is to state flatly and repeatedly that America’s primary military goal in Libya is to protect the security of its citizens and its interests in the region. If Americans are harmed or taken hostage, or if terrorists take advantage, or oil supplies are endangered, then we must act." Again, I disagree. Americans, all Americans, should leave Libya and get out of harm's way, i.e., don't become targets, especially targets of opportunity, by either side. Terrorists by nature 'take advantage', so that is to be expected, more a matter of time and events than anything else. Endangered oil supplies? Please, oil is a commodity available from sources around the world and the amount of oil received directly from Libya can 1) be replaced by other sources and 2) are not worth losing the life of just one U.S. Marine over. Libya does not possess a navy capable of causing any disruption in the region's supply. Protect the supply outside the area upon which they could cause damage (which is already being done) and leave it at that. I suggest reading Christopher Preble's book "The Power Problem" for an insight into the degree to which the world's sea lanes are in need of protection. But, I do agree: let's take a long, deep breath.

    2. Ted, NJ says:

      "It’s too early to jump to military conclusions while events on the ground are so uncertain and fluid. If, after the picture becomes clearer and we learn that specific actions—including military ones—will lead to that outcome, then we should consider them."

      So, in effect, do nothing until events on the ground "become clearer." Yes, that is a recipe for leadership. Just how does that differ from what the Obama administration is doing again?

      I do find it interesting though that this post does seem to differ from what some of us have heard Dr. Holmes telling other European interested parties in private. To each his own I suppose.

    3. Pingback: Morning Bell: Obama Dithers While American Credibility Burns | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

    4. Pingback: Morning Bell: Obama Dithers While American Credibility Burns | DC-ON.us

    5. Last Sane Man, CA says:

      Personally, the best option would have been A) evacuate all US citizens, B) park a few battleships off the coast, and C) issue a statement saying that while we support freedom, our national interests come first and we will be on our guard if the situation gets "out of hand" so to speak.

      Qaddafi is an incompetent, brutal dictator, yes, but the rebels aren't exactly freedom fighters pushing for democratic reform. Our best bet would have been strong neutrality, if that can have a meaning.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×