But while it may want Qaddafi out, the White House insists that the military action in Libya is intended solely to protect civilians, noting that the United Nations did not authorize anyone to overthrow Qaddafi. And that leaves Mr. Obama with a vexing choice, between living with a civil war that may drag on for weeks, months or years, at a gradually rising human cost, and becoming more deeply involved, either directly or through NATO, in a third war in a Muslim nation. “We’re not in a good place,” an Obama adviser acknowledged last week, on a day when rebel forces seemed particularly hapless and disorganized.From the beginning there were naysayers who advised against the imposition of a no-fly zone, though those in favor can still claim that if it had been put into place early and in a timely manner, a no-fly zone might have been of greater help to the rebels in preventing Gaddafi's forces from advancing.
In the meantime, the idea of a no-fly zone has been discredited to a degree--and to the extent that anyone with a military perspective might have considered implementing one over Israel, they are likely to be dissuaded against using it again elsewhere. Then again, those most likely to promote such an idea, such as the Arab League and pro-Palestinian apologists, are likely to have no interest in such military niceties. They will probably be only too happy to suggest a no-fly zone over Israel just to make a point and create agitation.
Besides, this tactic only failed against Libya--but against Israel, a democracy that would by definition not have access to the means Gaddafi had for thwarting NATO, such as using human shields, a no-fly zone might still seem like an attractive idea.
Especially to Muslim dictatorships.
Technorati Tag: Israel and Gaza and Hamas and Libya.