Is a no fly zone normally an offensive tool?

[dkf]

Personally I thought it was meant simply to protect, not to function as one sides air force in a conflict.

But I will certainly remember this precedent should we be asked to provide a no fly zone again.

[Unvanguard]

1. The resolution also provided for efforts to protect civilians.

It was more than a "no-fly zone" from the start.

[SDuderstadt]

2. Not only that, but...

a no-fly zone is, by definition, an offensive tool, because it requires totally disabling the target country's air defenses.

[Unvanguard]

7. It by definition requires (or at least permits) the use of force.

But there is a difference between using force to maintain control of the air and using force to disable ground forces.

[dkf]

4. But is that what the Senate meant when the passed their approval?

Did they embrace the entire UN Resolution which offered a whole lot more than a no fly zone? Frankly I highly doubt it.

[Unvanguard]

6. What does the Senate have to do with anything? n/t

[dkf]

8. Some are using the Senate's Resolution supporting a no fly zone

To say that Obama had the consent of congress for our latest misadventure.

[Unvanguard]

15. Well, "the Senate" isn't Congress. That's a Boehner-esque error.

Quite aside from what the resolution did or didn't say.

[Luminous Animal]

14. How could the Senate approve of something that hadn't been articulated yet?

The Senate passed a non-binding resolution on March 1st that contained support for a UN led no-fly zone. The UN Security Council didn't act until March 17th.

[Warren Stupidity]

13. somehow 'civilians' has morphed to include close air support for

offensive operations by one army in a civil war. The supposed crisis that motivated this was the imminent assault on Benghazi by the official Libyan Army. That could and quite reasonably should have been prevented on humanitarian grounds by the UN. But the mission never stopped there and went way past 'protect the citizens of Benghazi' from day one. This has been Mission Bullshit (Oil) from the get go.

[Unvanguard]

16. So what do YOU think the end game for that kind of operation should have been?

Force Gaddafi's forces from the immediate surroundings of Benghazi, and then get out and let them go right back and do it anyway?

[Warren Stupidity]

17. Protect Benghazi.

Impose a no fly zone for the eastern half of the country. Start the process of negotiating a cease fire and a resolution.

[Possumpoint]

3. It Is An Act Of War

In that you must destroy the Air Defense measures of the opposing forces before you can safely enforce the no fly zone.

[dkf]

5. But once you have destroyed them and there are no planes flying, aren't you done?

[SDuderstadt]

9. No...

You have to make sure the target country does not regain the capability.

[dkf]

12. I meant if there are no planes flying should you expect there will still be more military action.

If Gaddafi doesn't use his planes to attack, and the air defense is gone, wouldn't a true no fly zone simply be on standby?

[NightWatcher]

11. a rifle that could shoot upwards becomes an "air defense" that must be taken out

then anytime you see troops with a gun, the no-fly must be protected by destroying their capabilities to shoot our planes down


"no fly" sounds pretty, but it's a justification for one sided war. We get to bomb the shit out of them and kill them all if they object to being shelled endlessly

[msongs]

10. yes. when only ONE side actually has airplanes, its imposition is choosing sides nt