The military implications of no-fly-zone diplomacy

The footprints of the US military are in 46 nations. If the Americans decide to actively intervene in Libya it will be the 47th nation. Can the US, recovering from an economic downturn, afford another military intervention? That is the moot question.

The US President has difficult choices before him. The Americans have always portrayed themselves as the champion of democratic values. The entire West Asia and North Africa region is in the throes of a democratic movement. None of these people's representatives have sought active foreign help and if the outside world stays a mute spectator it will be at its own cost. Energy security is a live issue and fuel is required by all economies. Thus actions will have to be taken to ensure energy security.

There are some other pertinent questions as well. Military interventions require clear-cut political directions and in this case it is going to be difficult to give clear-cut political directions. The problems are many. The first is that on the one hand America and the West have generally sided with the oil-rich dictators for a near-sighted oil policy they lack goodwill at the ground level from the people. In view of the fact that they have little support the time frame for any intervention is going to be difficult.

The cost of imposing an NFZ is 1.5 billion dollars a year and how many years will it last is hard to state. The next problem is the ability to impose one's will. The NATO countries lack the necessary muscle to impose its will, therefore, gunboat diplomacy will be replaced by no-fly-zone diplomacy and the United States if heavily committed will have to suffer in terms of providing manpower and resources and also bear the brunt of negative political fallout - "Yankee go home".

The previous NFZ were imposed in Southern Iraq in 1992 till 2003 and was quite ineffective. The next case was in 1992 - vide the UN council security resolution no. 781 - prohibiting unauthorised military flights in Bosnian airspace. This led to an NFZ where Nato monitored violations but did not take action against violators of the resolution, which subsequently led to active operations. This too was quite ineffective given the state brutality on the ground. The US is also currently withdrawing troops from Iraq, fighting a war in Afghanistan, is involved actively in Pakistan and has its hands full. Hence why should it or the UN think in terms of imposing an NFZ in Libya?

The circumstances in Libya are a little different. The state is in all probability heading for a civil war. There are two distinct areas and the rebels who wish for a democratic nation are being ravaged from the air, and have been requesting the international community for help. Hafiz Ghoga, a rebel council spokesman in Benghazi, stated, "We already prevailed and we will complete our victory when we are afforded a no-fly zone. If there were also action to stop (Muammar) Gaddafi from recruiting mercenaries, his end would come within hours."

The climate, therefore, is conducive for military intervention and an NFZ is the best of the options vis-à-vis other military options, which are both manpower and cost intensive. Libya also has antiquated air defence measures. Thus it will be easy to impose an NFZ. An NFZ automatically imposes sanctions on Libya and how it pumps oil out will become crucial for its economy.

The political climate in America also warrants action. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is slowly veering around to the idea of an NFZ, should the Libyan people also want it. Senator John of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has asked for an NFZ but added it should be under international agreement. This will also require assistance from friendly Arab nations.

The military cost of armaments in imposing an NFZ will entail a large number of ships, aircraft carriers and a prominent place to Malta, last defended in the early stages of the Second World War by three fighter aircraft called Faith, Hope and Charity. It will require fighter aircraft, air-borne early warning systems, search and rescue teams, helicopter attack and support, AD suppressive systems - in short a complex operation. Above all, it will need people's support back home in America as a lot of them are tired fighting various shades of militant Islam for the last ten years.

A complex operation but of all the ones previously attempted, this has the best chances of success and if the international community has respect for the people's wishes and choices and values freedom, then it's a just cause.
 

Brig CS Thapa (Retd) is an advisor to the Pioneer Dehradun and writes a column, 'Mount View' for its Dehradun and Chandigarh editions.

Courtesy: The Pioneer, 14 March 2011

http://www.dailypioneer.com/324181/The-military-implications-of-no-fly-zone-diplomacy.html

(The views expressed in the article are that of the author and do not represent the views of the editorial committee or the centre for land warfare studies).