The United States must resist the call to impose a "no-fly zone" over Libya in the midst of that nation's escalating civil war .
Washington Post Columnist George F. Will offered a list of compelling questions which must influence the United State's decision to engage our military forces in Libya:
— The world would be better without Gadhafi. But is that a vital U.S. national interest? If it is, when did it become so?
–Some will submit that protecting oil reserves in Libya is crucial to sustaining a weak recovery in this country. But the cost in time, treasure, and blood would far outweigh any economic benefit.
— What lesson should be learned from the fact that Europe's worst atrocity since the Second World War — the massacre by Serbs of Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica — occurred beneath a no-fly zone?
–The scenario Will referred to begs the larger question: What would the United States be attempting to accomplish with a no-fly zone? Are we trying to protect civilians? There is no guarantee that it would prove successful. Would we be actively trying to bring down Gadhafi's government? The United States would then have to commit far more than air strikes to the region.
— U.S. forces might ground Gaddafi's fixed-wing aircraft by destroying runways at his 13 air bases, but to keep helicopter gunships grounded would require continuing air patrols, which would require the destruction of Libya's radar and anti-aircraft installations.
–A "no-fly zone" will demand more machine power and man-power than the strategists can for see.
— If we decide to give war supplies to the anti-Gadhafi fighters, how do we get them there?
— A: We would have to go from air offensives to land offensives.
There is, of course the thornier question of what would happen to the weapons we give the rebels. Would they start using them on each other? On defenseless civilians? Against American forces?
— Presumably we would coordinate aid with the leaders of the anti-Gadhafi forces. Who are they?
— Who knows? And can we trust them to have the best interest of their nation, liberal republicanism, and international law, in mind?
— Libya is a tribal society. What concerning our Iraq and Afghanistan experiences justifies confidence that we understand Libyan dynamics?
–None! U. S. foreign policy has tried too often to conjure democratic change in nations still stuck in the swamp of tribalism. Investing human lives over an interminable period of time, whether with aircraft or ground troops, will not coerce tribal entities from surrendering their shrouded sovereignty. Throughout his untimely forty year reign, Moammar Gadhafi had to placate this petty political groups to coalesce his power. The United States, as sudden interloper into Libyan politics, would have no legitimacy to enforce lasting change.
— Secretary of State Hilary Clinton fears Libya becoming a failed state — "a giant Somalia." Have we not seen [in past conflicts, like Somalia] how humanitarian military interventions can take nasty turns?
–Failed states cannot be a result of this nation's insistent, unwanted intervention. Some reports have released increased demand on the part of rebels fighting desperately in the East. If we heed their cries, the long-term implications for us will be problematic.
— The Egyptian crowds watched and learned from the Tunisian crowds. But the Libyan government watched and learned from the fate of the Tunisian and Egyptian governments. It has decided to fight. Would not U.S. intervention in Libya encourage other restive peoples to expect U.S. military assistance?
–Yes, and that's a domino effect the United States must avoid at all costs. We must safeguard our own freedoms, first and foremost.
— Would it be wise for U.S. military force to be engaged simultaneously in three Muslim nations?
–Absolutely NOT! We cannot, should not, must not attempt to police the world. The United States can make the way safe for our own borders and our own interests, but we simply do not have the reach, the reason, or the resources to make the world as a whole safe for liberal polity.