What is the point of the “no fly zone” over Libya?

[David__77]

Several points have been put forward. Is the point to “equalize” the strategic military position of the government and the rebels? If so, then wouldn’t strategic equilibrium actually prolong the conflict, and possibly lead to de facto partition of the country?

Is the point to prevent military movements and offensives that would harm civilian non-combatants? Again, if so, would this not “freeze” the existing situation? It sounds like an enforced ceasefire on both sides.

Way back on February 28, some opposition figures were calling for “no fly zone” because they thought it would allow them to win: "We want logistical foreign intervention, air embargoes, bombardments of air bases, communication centers and supervision of the coasts," said Muftah Queidir, a lawyer close to Benghazi's governing coalition. "Otherwise, the battle will take too long, and it will never end, and more people will die, and there will be a big question mark over the future of Libya." But on what basis could it be assumed that this would shorten, and not prolong the conflict? Any "no fly" or "no drive" zone applies to all.

I am not saying that ceasefire, or limiting the theater of government-opposition military conflict to peripheral areas is a bad thing – but I do think it will over the longer term hinder resolution of the conflict, unless a negotiated settlement between Gaddafi and the opposition can be agreed to. Maybe the intervention will facilitate that happening.

Curious to hear anyone's thoughts...

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

1. to keep planes, tanks, and artillery from killing rebels

[David__77]

2. But it does freeze things in place.

And it prevents rebel offensives. It also prevents rebels from using these things to kill government supporters, no?

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

7. I don't think it prevents the rebels from an offensive. it just keeps planes out of the sky.

and bombs the shit out of Gaddafi's tanks, of course

[TygrBright]

3. The rebels generally have far less air capacity and little anti-aircraft ordnance.

The "no-fly zone" prevents the pro-Qaddafi military forces from using superior airpower for reconnaissance in rebel areas, extending supply lines to their own forward positions using air transport, and carrying out bombing and strafing attacks in rebel-held civilian areas.

helpfully,
Bright

[David__77]

4. And then?

I mean, what are the strategic implications for the civil conflict there? Is this even being thought through at all?

[MH1]

9. I am very sure it is being 'thought through'. Maybe not in the way you like.

I don't think Obama and the other heads of state who approved this just woke up and said, hey maybe we'll try the no-fly zone thingie.

It took as long as it did because there were a lot of angles being analyzed, I'm sure.

Maybe they didn't come up with the right answer. I'm not entirely comfortable with it. But I wouldn't accuse them of not thinking about it.

[DavidDvorkin]

5. According to Juan Cole, it will probably lead to the collapse of Quadaffi's regime

http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/french-jets-defend-benghazi.html

[NightWatcher]

6. it's a double dog dare to incite a war

[customerserviceguy]

8. It's for all the hand-wringers out there

who fret that we have to "do something!" even though:

1) It's not our fight.

2) We have no idea that anyone who defeats Gaddafi will be any better than he is in a decade after a takeover.

3) It just makes Bushco look legitimate by interfering in another country's affairs for no good reason.

4) It will probably prolong the civil war, and just make more casualties for the hand-wringers to fret about in the end, anyway.

[Posteritatis]

10. Any discussion of this which talks as though it's just a no fly zone is starting off wrong

Read the UNSC resolution. It's not as hard as most DUers seem to think it is.