Libya: Instead Of A No-Fly-Zone, How About The Israeli Approach? (Update: Gates Agrees)

The New York Times has a pro and con debate on instituting a no-fly-zone over Libya. It's interesting stuff, but there is limited space for each of the 7 participants--members of universities and think tanks.

The best explanation I found for why a no-fly-zone wouldn't work--and what would work instead--is from Popular Mechanics. This is definitely not the Popular Mechanics I remember from when I was a kid.

The article, Analysis: Why a No-Fly Zone Over Libya is the Wrong Move Militarily, is by Joe Pappalardo, the editor of Popular Mechanics. I looked him up and he is a former associate editor at Smithsonian's Air & Space magazine and is the recipient of a 2005 distinguished reporting award from Military Reporters and Editors--so I suppose he must know something about what he writes.


In any case, Pappalardo discounts the idea of imposing a no-fly-zone based on military considerations:

Experiences in Bosnia and Iraq have proven that no-fly operations are a lot harder to maintain than most civilians assume. Establishing a no-fly zone over a country the size of Libya would take hundreds of fighters and refueling aircraft. And with Libya's network of Russian-made anti-aircraft missiles, such round the clock flights would be hazardous duty. If an allied pilot was shot down, more lives would be placed at risk to rescue him. There's another practical problem as well: Locating every airborne helicopter or fixed wing aircraft in Libyan airspace would take a massive surveillance effort. As the revolution turns to civil war, the operation could suffer from a lack of focus.

I'm not advocating a military intervention of any type. But if the world insists on preventing Libyan military aircraft from flying, it's not logical or efficient to maintain endless 24-hour sorties, waiting for the Libyans to launch aircraft and hoping to shoot them down before they target civilians.

However, Pappalardo does not discount a military option altogether. In fact, the option he does recommend sounds vaguely familiar:

It would be simpler and more effective to destroy the country's air force on the ground—and much safer for our fliers.

No matter who is conducting the air strikes—a coalition of the willing of Britain and the U.S., a NATO force a la Bosnia or a U.N.-sanctioned operation—it would be better to conduct a quick operation. The initial steps would be the same as establishing a traditional no-fly zone—"wild weasel" style strikes launched from bases in Italy, Turkey and the Middle East to take out air defenses.

Just like in the Six Day War.

If international forces were intent on crippling Libyan air power, instead of merely trying to contain it, the next step would be to target air bases, communication hubs and hangars. Runways could be pocked with craters, refueling depots immolated and repair depots wrecked. The Libyan Air Force would be neutralized, without constant warplane patrols overhead. Even if every airplane and helicopter were not destroyed, without supporting infrastructure, the regime's ability to attack civilians would be curtailed.

In any case, whether you are talking about a no-fly-zone or a quick strike--we are talking about war, with potential casualties and accusations of interference from the Muslim world. The advantage of a quick strike is that it would be exactly that--a quick strike, instead of drawn-out involvement, addressing the diplomatic concerns.

Now we sit back and see what the Obama administration decides to do.
Hopefully, they will not be sitting back as well.

UPDATED: After posting this, I noticed that Defense Secretary Robert Gates agrees on the need for a quick strike:

Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Wednesday said the U.S. military could establish a no-fly zone over Libya, but he cautioned that doing so would first require widespread air strikes across that nation.

“If it’s ordered, we can do it,” Gates told the House Appropriations's Defense subcommittee.

But establishing control of Libyan air space would “start with attacks to destroy” Libyan air defense systems. That kind of assault would require more U.S. military aircraft than “you would find on a single aircraft carrier.”

With so many fighter jets involved in other conflicts, the needed additional jets would have to be redeployed. 

Gates told the panel that U.S. military involvement in Libya would require Congress to approve a use-of-force measure.

Adm. Michael Mullen, Joint Chiefs chairman, reiterated on Wednesday that U.S. security officials have still been unable to confirm that Libyan military jets fired on opposition members.

Technorati Tag: Libya and No-Fly-Zone.