Nobody every seems to complete the sentence fragment "Do Something!" . It think the complete sentence is do something stupid, or do something that makes it look like we are doing something.

What is the endstate? If you want Muammer gone the best way to do it is strike directly at the "King". You're already at war w the No Fly Zone, why half step?

There are probably real aviators maybe even pararescue here, but on topic of search and rescue, most of the people in Libya live on the coast and the no fly area might not be too deep. The Navy can probably go right up to the beach. I am not sure that Tunisia or Egypt will let us set up forward bases on borders in the deep desert but I don't think you fly there anyway. The real question is What is the PURPOSE of the No Fly Area? What is the ENDSTATE of this little exercise in power? If it ain't worth doing if things go wrong it was not worth doing in the first place (because things WILL go wrong).

Let's face it, the issue here is perception first and foremost. How is the US seen to be handling the situation a) internationally, b) among allies, c) among enemies and d) domestically? On this, the US can't 'win' because there are inherent downsides in almost every case as MENA undergoes uncertain change. At best, it can react to events.

In Libya, the population may or may not want full US intervention given our history with them as enemies and more recently as "allies." In Egypt, Libya, Bahrain and elsewhere, our records with their leaders don't make us the best actor to function as mediator, and probably handcuffs how involved the US can be without adding an anti-US flavor to these movements. If the UN weren't largely ineffectual, it would lead on Libya and bring in a peacekeeping force. But that too would be done with significant US and NATO support that's already over-extended in Afghanistan, coming fast on the heels of Iraq. And what precedent would UN-sanctioned military intervention set if the Libyan scenario happens in Bahrain or Yemen or Saudi or Iran? US forces are just getting out of the region this year.

Lets stop this US military intervention talk now. Lets remember what a Fiasco (s) we've gone through and continue to go through in the Arab world. Lets let others attempt to settle this matter, even Chavez:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/03/20113365739369754.html

There are already Dutch Marines held by the Libyan government. Any unilateral action, even in conjunction with Europeans, can only mean resultant SNAFU for the US. Lets just stand down and stand back from this one.

Contrary to popular belief, milk is not a recommended antidote to heartburn, and neither is a no fly zone over Ligya recommended, as much heartburn as some may have over seeing innocent civilians killed.

Today is not RT. . . .rant day, but rather it calls for a sermon, in other words, another rambling diatribe from me.

Why would we want even consider this, which I guaran-told you, once introduced, would see mission creep expand it. . .we simply can't help ourselves. . .I think some actually in and out of uniform like it.

Once this dynamic is introduced, that we intercede anywhere and everywhere there is civil unrest or a popular uprising, where does it end? Is it then further onto increasing our presence in Yemen, Bahrain, Oman (keep oil producing Nigeria in the back of your mind for next year)?

Let me pose a question: we have pretty much evacuated all Americans out of Libya that want to leave and thus out of harms way. The only real reason I see that we established diplomatic relations with Momar Quadaffi in the first place, was because our oil companies wanted back in to continue operations in their established oil producing blocks in the eastern and western fields.

Specifically Italy and France, and generally Spain, have more to lose than America does (save for those that think some radical foreign Islamist anti-American group might move in, which I don’t thing the population would tolerate). So, why are we expending the resources even now drilling holes in the water off-shore with our Navy? Perhaps we should issue hard hats to Marines, and train them as armed rough necks that can secure oil blocks and operate the rigs too (I hope Occidental isn't reading this, they'll lobby for it). Wait a minute, hold that thought on hard hats, the current Fritz helmet can do double duty. . .we are frugal after all.

Does it always have to be America, while the rest of the World sits back and watches us bleed our resources?

Ok, let's say the do gooder, ooh ah squad has their way. We don't necessarily need some places out in the desert to base helicopters to pick up downed fliers. It could be done, and has been before, off the coast of Viet-Nam, without the heartburn of setting-up an expeditionary air field, and the ground force security element being introduced with its logistical trail. We have been land-locked for so long, perhaps we've forgotten how to do that?

However, as doable as it may be, and as poorly trained, as that captain that promoted himself to colonel upon taking control of Libya 40 some years ago has kept his army, specifically to make sure turn-around isn’t fair play. The Libyans aren’t stupid, and would, or probably have already, moved their anti-aircraft systems among populated areas. And as stated: any introduction of a no fly zone, means taking-out the surface-to-air threat, no matter how rudimentary from the get-go.

In my day, I would watch 250 pound bombs basically bounce off NVA bunkers, if they didn’t overshoot the target, as well as 500 pounders make it appear they were destroyed, only to incur a hornets nest upon assaulting.

My point is, as better as munitions and delivery of such are today, I wouldn't let some people in decision making positions, oversell you on air-power as a panacea for what’s going on in Libya, and further they need to spell out, just what America’s strategic interest are there.

Thus ends today's service, don't forget to tithe on the way out, the church is in need of repairs.

First off, I'd just like to invoke my refrain on such matters. Ripley. Hicks. Orbit. Only way to be sure.

That said, don't worry about the nuke-you-lar option. I have already resolved the outcome of this war. You see, I've deployed a force of 20 million people to Libya. In addition to its size, you wouldn't believe how uniquely and well trained it is to fight an asymmetric campaign against an entrenched Libyan dictatorship. In fact, they've been trained for this mission their entire lives.

I have decided to call this elite force of counter-tyrants "The Libyans."

Trust me on this one. They'll handle it. Brega is their Bunker Hill. There might be a Valley Forge in between there and the Colonel's tent, but I have faith. Leave somebody alone for once.

You'd think, with all the discontent the people have over Afghanistan and Iraq, that they'd want to have some skin in the game on these decisions. I'm in Italy, so I don't know if anyone is out there throwing tomatos at 1600 Pennsylvania. But if they aren't, we need to review the instructions for Yellow Ribbon use as provided on this forum again.

Draw a line in the sand and one of two things will happen: (a) it will blow away; (b) someone will step over it.

Post- No Fly in Iraq. Where were the two big air bases? Tikrit and Balad (between the Northern and Southern No Fly Zones).

I join the chorus---It is a Libyan matter.

I'm going to invoke the Walter Sobchek rule here. I see what you're trying to say, but let's be fair...

"Imposing a no-fly zone is an act of war."

Well, yes.

"It would require attacking Qaddai's air defense systems-not just anti-aircraft guns and missile batteries, but also radar and communications systems."

Yep, that sounds like what the olds call an 'air campaign' to me. Of course, we haven't done one in a while (See, Op. Allied Force.. we'll get back to that later) - what with how that sort of thing is obsolete and all, I keep hearing. Turns out air superiority actually still matters. Too bad Moammar doesn't read Small Wars Journal. He could have scrapped his MiGs and IADS and bough land cruisers, keffiyehs and RPGs instead.

"We may also need some places out in the desert to base helicopters to pick up downed fliers."

Egypt, next door. Sigonella, Sicily isn't too far either. Not to mention those 100,000 long tons of American sovereignty we call aircraft carriers. They worked out pretty well the last time we did this.

"Hmmm, another American war in an Arab state"

Barring a request from the provisional government to strike pre-determined targets, I don't see it as a 'war'. Bosnia? Kosovo? No, nothing?

"How long are we willing to continue this state of war?What if we engage in an act of war, and he prevails against the rebels? Do we continue to fight him, escalate -- or just slink away? And what do we do about aircrews taken prisoner?"

Hm. Wait a second... lets play some scrabble here...

'How long are we willing to continue this (Afghan debacle)?'

Good question.

'What if we engage in an act of war, and (The Taliban) prevails? Do we continue to fight, escalate - or just slink away?'

Man, that is a good question.

"Why risk going to war and losing? That is, if we are willing to do air strikes, why not go the whole way and use ground troops now to go in and topple a teetering regime? I actually would prefer this option."

Who's saying we wouldn't target him and his circle? We targeted Saddam in both Desert Storm and OIF. You might not like it, but that's kind of the point of an air campaign - strategic decapitation. Ground Troops!?!? Nobody is talking about this option, because it would be silly. A ground army already exists in the country, and they seem to be holding their own - barring the asymmetric advantage Qaddafi has over them by use of airpower.

"See what I mean?"

You had me... then you lost me.

"A better parallel might be Serbia, which (aided by a smart Hungarian national who now is a baker) managed to down an F-117 stealth fighter aircraft in March 1999 with an SA-3 anti-aircraft missile."

This is my favorite. You throw out Serbia, then the F-117 shootdown with no further commentary. A smart ground commander effectively targeted a stealth aircraft and shot it down, through use of spotters, ground comm links, and a well trained crew - stealth is not a cure all, and that's beside the point.

This might be uncomfortable to admit in the Three Cups of Tea crowd, but Operation Allied Force - for all its warts, problems and bomb damage assessment reports - has the benefit of being the last US and allied military campaign to achieve a decisive and unambiguous strategic goal: the removal of forces from Kosovo and the eventual downfall of the Milosevic regime. No ground forces utilized, no occupation, no US NATO casualties.

Nobody's talking about putting in ground troops in Libya, because frankly, our current two Asian COIN meat grinders are chewing up enough of our blood and treasure and the results are decidedly disappointing. Considering Gates' West Point speech, I don't think he'd disagree either.

*= with apologies to the original Chris Rock routine

If we (or any other external force) were to enforce a no-fly zone it would involve SEAD to take out the SAM sites around their major military facilities and population centers. Act 1 would be stealth and cruise missiles and then the follow on would be with the mass of force. Does help make the case for the F-22 though . . .
No matter, it would still take a significant effort and as noted above it would paint the Libyan opposition as tools of the outside.

The better solution would be to get some good manpads into the hands of the "rebels" to keep the Libyan AF from being able to support Muammar's forces.

This approach worked in Afghanistan to enforce a no-fly zone against Soviet air power.

But it's easier to yell and make headlines. Sigh.

When Paul Wolfowitz yells charge it is clearly the time for all good men to mill about smartly.

Perhaps one of the worst outcomes of the neocon leadership that kicked off these last two adventures was that they divided the world up between good vs. evil...very dangerous. 10 years later, people still think we were attacked for "our way of life/freedom" and not our foreign policy/actions. This is in no way a justification of that terrible day, but in order to remedy our security/status in the world, we must understand the problem and exhibit some intellectual honesty...Sun Tzu. NSS02/06 mention the word "interests" only a couple times...the rest is filled with religious-like poetry.

What I'm getting at, is that our elected officials never talk about what is in our vital national interest, which is what should guide FP. Like others on here, I agree that for now it would be a horrible idea to engage in airstrikes of any kind. Let them have their war. The Arab world says it does not want intervention, and we should listen for once. Moreover, the Arab countries and European countries have more interests in Libya so let them have this one. Anti-American sentiment leads to terrorism...bombing Libya would only fuel the fire. Right now, we need to figure out how to 1) discontinue propping up autocrats who don't represent/oppress their people and 2) get tough on Israel (stop letting the tail wag the dog). 3) do our best to stabilize/wrap up operations in Afghanistan/Iraq. 4) Think deeply about our foreign policy and revert to a posture of off-shore balancing.

Secretary Gates and the military leadership have issued sound judgment on this matter with a subtle warning to the detriments of carrying it out. Hopefully, this administration (unlike the previous one) didn't submit to Eliot Cohen's Supreme Command, which essentially served to marginalize military opinion (and Sec Powell) in the face of the neocon agenda...by cherry picking 4 events in history to support a pre-determined message. Sorry Tom...I know you've plugged that book.

Thomas Ricks is correct in stating that this act would do harm in many ways for the United States. It would cost more money we do not have right now and further spread hatred towards America in the region. However, we simply cannot allow the Libyan government to use planes and other large military weapons against unarmed civilians fighting for freedom and democracy. This is an even worse situation. The best and only option must be a U.N. security council resolution to impose the no-fly zone and have the forces be completely equal in numbers with many participants. The U.S. is not the only nation with military capabilities to pull off a no-fly zone operation against a country like Libya. The U.S. can support/command/offer help in this mission, but it is bad news for America if they do all the work on this one by themselves.

War is exactly what many people want. Never mind the billions which the defensive industry can earn from supplying the war machine, for many oil is enough to justify US engaging in yet another war.

The US will be in bigger trouble if Qaddafi pulls off his Libyan Thermidor. First, this would embolden every general in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, etc., who wants to fire into crowds. Second, autocratic regimes would have new incentives to develop wmds. Third, the US would be stuck with the Qaddafis for another thirty plus years.

The US could simply announce at this point that any use of heavy weapons (aircraft, tanks, artillery) against civilians would be met by quick imposition of a No Fly Zone. Then, once broken, the US could launch air strikes on any target it wanted. How long would it take for the rebels to take Tripoli? I'd give it three days to a week. No US boots would touch the ground. Once a new regime was in power that'd be it for the No Fly Zone.

Could Qaddafi take reassert his control over the entire country with an army of mercenaries assisted by heavy weapons? Of course. Anyone who has that many billions at his disposal will get plenty of offers of help. If the US had to commit ground troops I'd be opposed, but we don't.

The thing about this and earlier Egypt kibutzing sessions, is that no questions are asked or assumptions stated about what the US is already doing, as a precondition to discussing new actions.

We recently "counterproliferated" this regime, removing their nascent nukes at fleet gunpoint in this decade. So we know Tripoli was already on our radar bigtime, 'with contingencies'. We know that the whole top shelf of our republic are jawboning the heck out of Tripoli (and anyone with less robust sat/cable/internet news defenses), so it's a cinch that the messagers want somebody to believe/do/not do something. Including Lieberman/McCain, who slide nicely into the 'bad cop' role.

As Tyrtaois points out, the reason that Libya is strategic (and Sudan is not so much) is the well developed and accessible oil resource that is (for now) mostly no longer in the hands of Gaddaffy's clan. If the regime can't sell oil, or can't credibly threaten to blast it, they lose.

So the 'least action' (and therefore most attractive) military option (besides capping the dudes) is to keep heavy weapons from threatening the oil ports, refineries, pipelines and wellheads. Gaddaffy quickly goes broke, morally and financially, and oil markets stabilize.

Easier said than done, and of course once we say 'don't', the baddies say 'try to stop us'. If we say 'don't or we'll respond', then the empires rep demands we start smashing things, and killing anyone in the line of fire. (Grad MRLS rockets might be more worrisome than their attack jets)

Libya/Tripoli's AA systems are mostly irrelevant, except as they figure into the oil equation. The Libyan people and protesters aren't threatened by weapons aimed at jets, except in the sense of Gaddaffy calling for common defense agin infidels. The Libyans are threatened moslty by economic disruption of food/water, and by Gaddaffy's henchmen using hand weapons.

Mercenaries and arms coming in by air transport is a humanitarian issue, and a messy one given our AT vulnerability. Handing our MANPADS can have unintended consequences, as the Charlie Wilson experiment proved.

Mr. Ricks, and all,

Although your comments extend excellent advice, I would have expected the discussion to center on "what is it we want to achieve in Libya, what does Libya look like next year, or what about five years from now?"

Do want Libyan’s to start to rule themselves? Do we want stability in the region? Is stability in the region more important to us than democracy? Do we believe that the right of the people to choose their government is more important to us? Let’s discuss both extremes: Regime change in Libya, in support of the people or attempt to re-establish a relationship with the current leadership to ensure/support the current regime. What are the means that we would use towards either end? Is it a no-fly zone that will encourage regime change and/or regime stability? Has it worked before? It certainly didn’t work through the 90s in Iraq, in fact, it may have “set the conditions” to go into Iraq.

The advice is great, bring the conversation up to the next level, what can we provide to our policy-makers that will help define the desired political outcomes with which we can start to build a strategy around. I don’t know, maybe the no-fly zone may work into that strategy, but we don’t know yet, because we don’t know what we want to accomplish there.

Even though all the military options have serious down-sides, the US must do something regarding Libya. Why? Because (whether you believe in the missionary role or not) since WW1 the US has always preached Democracy and Human Rights throughout the world. The various Presidents and Secretaries of State have always sung that tune whenever visiting countries like China, Vietnam, Egypt, and a host of others. Congress has passed bills that punish countries that score low on a human rights index. In much of the world, the US is seen as the primary spokesman and best example of democracy and human rights in practice.
So now, if the US just stands around while the Libyans are pursuing their revolution to overthrow their despotic ruler, the blow to US reputation in the world would be tremendous. We will be seen as hypocrites and in fact a toothless tiger in standing up for the ideals that we try to propagate. Surely all the brains in Washington can find a way to assist the Libyan revolution while keeping the risk as low as possible. For example, what about covert Special Forces teams inserted to train and supply the rebels? Wasn't that the basic function of SF since the 1950's? What about electronic jamming of Gaddafi's command and control communications? Come on, Pentagon, think out of the box!

JG is right, bet on his 20 million.

The Colonel is trying the "Ceausescu Gambit" he is going to lose and get dragged out by his heals. The crazier he sounds the more likely his troops are to defect, surrender, or take "French Leave". His Army was never any good, which led to getting their tails kicked in Chad and Uganda.

How do you promote democracy? The US mucking around in Libya is more likely to look like neo-imperialism (to the Arab street) than democracy. The Libyans winning this on their own will lead to legitimacy of whatever comes next.

Despite TRs best efforts - and those of the blog members.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/03/AR2011030305420.html?hpid=topnews

Whatt did Petraeus say "Tell me how this ends?"

May I play the Devil's Advocate? I respectfully read the posts of those who think a no-fly zone is a bad idea, including the author's arguments, of course. However, military intervention against Qaddafi should not present a huge problem. First, Libya's military is weak compared to that of either the U.S. or U.S. led coalition of states. It should not take much to neutralize Libya's military and to topple Qaddafi. Second, Qaddafi is hugely unpopular and widely hated by the rebels, especially when his military fires upon unarmed civilians. Hence, U.S. intervention on their behalf, could be viewed as a rescue mission. For once, instead of acting like an aggressor, the U.S. could be perceived as coming to the aid of unarmed Arab civilians who want nothing more than to topple Qaddafi and to live in freedom. If we help them to achieve that goal, we might even be hailed as heroes in the Arab world. What a nice change! All of the above will rest on the U.S. getting out as soon as the mission is accomplished. We should not interfere in the post-Qaddafi process of choosing a new government, but leave that to the Libyans themselves. So what do you think?

Tom makes some prudent comments. However there are other alternatives to a full scale war which those opposed to no fly zones are advocating.
No one cares if Colonel Qaddafi flies his aircraft as long as they do not cause problems to the uprising. The uprising is concentrated mainly in several coastal towns.
Firstly: It would not seem impossible to locate some naval cruisers 15 miles off the coast but close to the towns to provide some limited SAM defense. This defense does not have to be perfect, the aim is to make it harder to bomb the uprising. Secondly: the Air Force's F-22s are meant to be stealthy. Is Colonel Qaddifi's air defenses so good that they pose a real threat to F-22s? Surely not. Again the F-22s only have to provide some limited air defense over a few coastal cities. This does not need to be 100% effective, simply sufficient to engage the occasional Libyan aircraft. Destroying one or two may change the equation in the uprising's favor.
The onus though is then placed on Colonel Qaddafi. If he uses his aircraft he risks having them destroyed. There does not need to be a major pre-empitive strike deep into Libya to destroy some elderly air defense systems and old fighters. The US/ West is not invading anyone and does not need to achieve air dominance and own the skies over the Libyan desert deep inland.
At the end of the day, the question in considering any no-fly zone of whatever scale must be who do we want to win. Tom Ricks is right this is a really serious step that needs to be undertaken only if we are sure of which side to back.
However, if Qaddafi wins there will be problems, even if the uprising has not been overtly backed by others. At this stage, the West and most of the UN have shown their hand anyway. Most governments evidently don't like him. Even if we don't take military action, the dice has already been thrown.