Alan Grayson explains the futility of a "no-fly zone".

This is from his e-mail newsletter - I don't have a link, as I couldn't find this on his official site.

"One of the unfortunate imperatives of public life is that when something is the lead story, you think you’ve got to be doing something about it. Not just have an opinion on it. Be doing something about it.

Volcano erupts? Prepare a news release on the new anti-volcano policy.

Zombies are multiplying? Introduce anti-zombie legislation.

Well, Libya’s been on the front page for a month now. Demonstrations. Civil unrest. Army attacks, etc. So our world leaders think that they’ve got to be doing something about it.

Hence the Libya no-fly zone.

Here is a link to UN Security Resolution 1973, authorizing the Libya no-fly zone. It shows a laudable, albeit rather repetitive, concern for civilian well-being. It also completely fails to explain how a no-fly zone will ensure the safety of civilians.

The Libyan Air Force hasn’t received a major delivery of new aircraft in 22 years. Roughly three-quarters of its “air”craft can’t fly.

It is true that the Libyan Air Force, such as it is, has been deployed. But the serious threat to civilians in Libya is not from the Libyan Air Force. It’s from the government security forces on the ground. A no-fly zone does not take away their guns, or their artillery.

For outsiders like us, there are two questions to answer:

(1) Do you want Gaddafi in or out?

(2) Either way, what are you willing to do about it?

Here are my answers:

(1) Out, because Gaddafi is a dictator who has stunted the development of his country and its people (although in a list of the 5,000 things that are most important to America, I’d have to rank this close to the bottom, even if it is on the evening news every night).

(2) Economic sanctions, including extending the de facto oil embargo and asset freeze that already are in effect.

And it’s likely that an oil embargo/asset freeze will work. Oil is 95% of Libya’s exports, and 25% of GNP. Libya has about four years of oil revenue in the bank, but with an asset freeze and economic sanctions, that becomes meaningless. Whatever the result in the streets, as soon as Gaddafi runs out of money, he’s gone.

But a no-fly zone? In the case of Libya, that’s a tactic in search of a strategy. The Yiddish word for it is “shmei,” roughly translated as aimless strolling around. A no-fly zone is basically just looking like you’re doing something to remove Gaddafi, at the cost of $60 million in a day (which was the cost of the first day’s worth of cruise missiles launched).

The last time we tried this, in Iraq, we had to sustain it for 12 years. At enormous effort and expense. And it didn’t bring down Saddam at all.

More fundamentally, a no-fly zone in Libya feeds the dangerous fantasy that every problem has a military solution. That the answer to the use of force is the use of more force. That if a hammer doesn’t drive that nail in, try a howitzer."

and all the intellectuals and politicians who opposed it are aghast at what's going on now. What a coincidence.

And when this turns in the inevitable fiasco, the hawks will slink away and either pretend they were mislead or that they were never really for it.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

this morning. Clearly this is about oil and they all want some.

I am deeply saddened by the hypocrisy everywhere - fucking imperialism and more crusade crap. I won't even comment on the hypocrisy right here at DU.

is how each country involved is stabbing the others in the back trying to line up the best deal they can. THE UK's hatred towards France for being to first to go genuflect at the TNC's knees has reached a new level.

I'm deeply saddened and dismayed. Disgusted to be truthful.

It's the same gameplan everytime; you'd think people would learn that if we want to help our own, we can't play the empire's game.

to continue the killing in Iraq.

Barack Obama formally brought an end to US combat operations in Iraq last night, seven years and 165 days after the invasion began, and declared it was time for America "to turn the page".

In a televised address to the nation from the Oval Office, the president said America had paid a huge price for the war begun by George W Bush to topple Saddam Hussein.

"Tonight, I am announcing that the American combat mission in Iraq has ended. Operation Iraqi Freedom is over, and the Iraqi people now have lead responsibility for the security of their country," he said.

Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki hailed the restoration of sovereignty to Iraq: "Iraq today is sovereign and independent. With the execution of the troop pullout, our relations with the United States have entered a new stage between two equal, sovereign countries."

more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/01/obama-formally-ends-iraq-war

to hang your hat on a loser one term congressman....

Really?

Callout, personal attack.

understand.

:popcorn:

Classy. :eyes:

Grayson's great.

an argument can be made that the French helped our revolutionaries, or something.
but this was a weak attack. period.

to every damned problem! :grr:

That just feeds into the problem of unchecked pentagon budgets while the rest of the nation starves.

That just feeds into the problem of military contractors getting fat while the rest of the country can't find jobs.

That just feeds the delusion that diplomacy can't be the solution. Remember diplomacy?

Obama has become the worst damn warmonger president we've ever had! It's time to end this bloated addiction to warfare before it turns us into a 3rd world nation.

the 3rd world status thing.
our economic inequality is already worse than most 3rd world nations. health care is right down there too.

I look forward to the day when the West doesn't deprive millions of people of life and resources just to maintain our exorbitant, resource-intensive way of life.

When I count up all the deaths for oil, all the pain, all the poverty, it makes me sick.

France killed over a million and a half in Algeria for oil. Italy did the same in Libya. Both committed crimes so atrocious that you dare not dwell on them from horror. All the empires' conflicts are over resources to enrich a few and enslave the rest. They make me sick.

america has used its share of the world's resources (more than its share)and now must learn to make due with what we have domestically. we must refocus our attention inward.
we have demonstrated that we are not good stewards of the globe. let us hope that those who rise in our dust will treat us with more respect than we have shown to others.

I'm not against military action myself but I am against the US getting involved. Oil embargo makes much better sense.

For one, there will be plenty of unscrupulous actors willing to smuggle to sanctioned items out. Ever heard of conflict diamonds? Do you really think there are none sitting in the diamond stores of the U.S. and Europe now?

Speaking of conflict diamonds, how did the sanctions prohibiting the import of those do towards removing dictatorships in Cote d'Ivoire? Liberia? Sierra Leone?

What happened with sanctions on Iraq? Saddam stuck around and he and his cronies did fine, thank you very much. Ordinary Iraqis suffered greatly, and I very much remember liberals, including many here (discussing the sanctions after the 2002 invasion) claiming that those sanctions were useless and were only punishing Iraqi civilians.

OK, put an embargo on Libyan oil. What next? Four years later, Libya has no money and its people are starving. Qadaffi and his crew are likely doing just fine. Oil prices will have increased in the meantime. How do you convince China and India to not buy Libyan oil? They're busily lapping up everything that Burma can pump. For that matter, once oil prices go up, good luck convincing the West that they should keep up the sanctions, as well.

Oh, by the way, how do you enforce that embargo? Strong language? Evil eye? Snark?

I suppose you could bring up South Africa, but serious sanctions really didn't pop up until the 1980's - the U.S. didn't finally impose sanctions until 1989. By that point, there was significant internal violence, a couple of border wars and the weight of cultural isolation working against the apartheid regime. Sanctions might have been a final nail, but did they really have a major effect, given that the dismantlement of the apartheid regime began in 1990?

Qadaffi is not "gone" if oil revenues dry up. He will simply tighten his grip and let people starve.

As usual, Rep. Grayson makes a lot of sense. What he says is surely something to think seriously about, and one of the things that I've been thinking seriously about is that a no-fly zone is just how Iraq started out. ( Jeremy Scahill Says Libyan Strategy Has No Endgame / democracynow.org ) America maintains it for a few years, until another regressive nutball gets elected and decides that "further action is needed" and we get to replay the last ten years all over again.

Once we start killing in Libya,
how do we stop?

Their lives are well worth the $60 million a day if all of the justifications for yet another war are to be believed. Funny how our "no-fly zone" keeps expanding too, as if it was ever intended to be peaceful boundary line.

This should be interesting.

Taking out the air superiority, further isolation, reduce mercenary reenforcement, and yeah take out the heavy equipment should leave a much "softer" Qaddafi and friends which will increase (though far from guarantee) the likelihood that the regime cannot stand against a determined populace.

My endgame is to re-stack the odds some and let the Libyans sort it out on a much more even playing ground.

Not ever problem has a military solution but some do. On rare occasion it is the only remedy. Passive resistance is only effective when there are hearts and minds that can be appealed to. It doesn't work on stone thugs be they wacky dictators or Robber Barons. The Gandhi and King response does not work with those who do not fear backlash from those whose support or acceptance they need to maintain power.

They don't give a fuck about marches and sit ins and no audience in the world has enough influence to reign in these monsters.

People love "magic bullets" but I don't think they exist. No tactic is effective against any opponent, at any time.

Not missiles, not diplomacy, not protests, not embargoes, not guns, not love, not hate, not rousing speeches, not rule of law, not anything is universally effective.

What is the nature of the enemy? Where does it draw it's strength? What does it fear? What drives it to desperation? Where are it's soft spots? How does it live and grow? What is it's sustenance?

Each opposition will have different answers and thus different ways to be brought down or managed.

Anybody that says anything will ALWAYS work is naive or a liar. Anyone that says you should be looking for 100% solutions is being dishonest or lacks wisdom.

for three decades. Grayson also ignores the fact that Saddam Hussein took the little money that came into Iraq with that country under an embargo and let his people starve. Dictators understand only one certainty, the exercise of a more power force against them. All of Grayson's prescriptions have been tried, and all have failed. What the French did on Saturday is perfect evidence that planes can destroy tanks and APCs. Once Libya's air defenses are down, the US can deploy slow moving, tank killing aircraft that do that job better than fighter jets.

The objective is to get rid of Gaddafi.

on the edge of Bengazi is a tad more than a "no fly zone". The UN resolution authorizes a good bit more than just shooting down aircraft.

Our job is apparently to clear the skies of surface to air missles and other guided anti-air capacities. This will allow the less capable aircraft from other countries to do the heavier lifting.