the no-fly zone question

It’s a tough question, after all.

1308: A Libyan rebel spokesman tells al-Jazeera that rebels will attack Tripoli once a “no-fly” zone is enforced.

1334: A senior defector from Libya’s government has called for a no-fly zone to be imposed over the country immediately. Murah Hemayma, who was in charge of all international organisations for the Libyan foreign ministry until a few days ago, told BBC World News: “‘The international community must stop talking about Libya and the news and not doing anything. They must implement this no-fly zone. It has been requested by the National Council, which is speaking for liberated parts of Libya, and the people of Tripoli are saying the same thing.”

What do you do here? A Western-enforced no-fly zone might in some eyes deligitimate the homegrown uprising. But nothing is more delegitimating than being massacred, which could be one of the alternative outcomes.

I suppose the Western nations could just let things move along slowly and either let the situation play out naturally or intervene only at the last minute to save the rebels’ necks. But what they’re asking for is not preservation at the last minute: they’re starting to ask for help in launching offensive operations, and they’re starting to complain that the rest of the world is just talking and not doing anything.

As Robert Gates has frankly stated, a no-fly zone doesn’t just mean that NATO or a US/UK pairing tells Qaddafi not to fly any aircraft. It means you have to go in and destroy all the radars and missile sites, in limited Gulf War ’91 fashion.

How would everyone feel about that, after Iraq and Afghanistan? Not very good, I suppose. But what if the rebels beg for it? There’s a real dilemma here.