US Air Force chief: Libya no-fly zone would be too little, too late
| Washington
On the same day that the United Nations authorized a no-fly zone in Libya, the top general in the Air Force said that it would not be enough to stop, much less roll back, the forces of Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi.
Testifying before Congress Thursday, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz suggested that laying the groundwork for a no-fly zone would take 鈥渦pwards of a week鈥� 鈥� not the "couple of days" suggested by other officials. Moreover, he said that a no-fly zone would not materially change the situation on the ground.
When asked by Sen. John McCain whether the situation in Libya 鈥渉as deteriorated to the point where it probably would require more than just a no-fly zone to reverse the momentum that Qaddafi鈥檚 forces have obtained,鈥� Schwartz vigorously agreed.
鈥淪ir, that is exactly my point,鈥� he said. 鈥淎 no-fly zone, sir, would not be sufficient.鈥�
President Obama said Friday that the US and a coalition of other nations will act against Libya if it does not abide by its self-declared ceasefire. But he did not clarify what that action might be.
Many military experts agree with Schwartz that a no-fly zone would be too little, too late. What is needed, they say, is the imposition of something akin to a "no-drive zone" for Qaddafi's forces or the insertion of special-operations troops.
"In military terms it鈥檚 never been clear that a no-fly zone would deprive Qaddafi of most of his forces,鈥� says Anthony Cordesman, a defense analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Qaddafi's troops are 鈥渄isciplined and structured鈥� and 鈥渉aven鈥檛 needed air cover,鈥� he adds. 鈥淚t鈥檚 been useful to have fighter jets for their psychological more than their military effect.鈥�
A 'no-drive zone'
The strikingly sweeping UN resolution language, however, allows for 鈥渁ll necessary force鈥� to protect Libyan civilians, meaning a no-fly zone need not be the extent of the global community's military involvement. One option is a 鈥渘o-drive zone鈥� of sorts, says Jeffrey White, defense fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. 鈥淲e did this in Iraq. You just say, 鈥榊ou can鈥檛 move your forces鈥� 鈥� no ground forces movement.鈥�
If Qaddafi fails to heed that prohibition, it may be necessary to considerably escalate allied military involvement with focused ground attacks on Libyan forces. This could include US air attacks on Libyan troops' rear areas and lines of communications, which 鈥渨ould disrupt Libyan capabilities very quickly,鈥� says Dr. Cordesman.
Now that Qaddafi has declared a ceasefire, his strategy likely involves buying time while he endeavors to consolidate his forces in the rebel-held east. But what he does nearer Tripoli, in the still unsettled western town of Misrata, 鈥渕ay well be a real test,鈥� says Mr. White. 鈥淚f Qaddafi continues to assault Misrata with ground forces and artillery like he鈥檚 been doing, that鈥檚 a clear challenge to the UN resolution.鈥�
What a bombing campaign would look like
Schwartz told the Senate Armed Services Committee that any aerial bombing 鈥渨ill require preparation of the battle space 鈥� essentially taking out Libyan air defenses and jamming communications.
These steps should not be exceedingly difficult, since about 40 percent of Libya鈥檚 air defenses are currently under control of the rebels, White says. 鈥淚t鈥檚 not like we鈥檙e trying to penetrate the Soviet Union during the cold war.鈥�
Also, precisely hitting such targets is 鈥渃ertainly within our capability,鈥� Schwartz said in his testimony. Most of Qaddafi鈥檚 forces in the west are 鈥渧ery exposed鈥� and 鈥渙ut in the desert.鈥�
It would be difficult for Qaddafi to hide tanks and multiple rocket launchers out there, says White, and US military assets equipped with infrared systems would find it relatively easy to hit the right target.
Yet prospects of accidentally hitting civilian targets increase in more populated areas. In urban areas, Schwartz warned, there are 鈥渃learly鈥� concerns about 鈥渃ollateral damage and so on.鈥�
No ground forces?
It is unlikely that any intervention would involve US ground forces. 鈥淣o one wants them there, and it鈥檚 not clear what advantages they would offer,鈥� Cordesman says.
President Obama said Friday that the US would not send ground troops into Libya. But while the UN resolution rules out any 鈥渙ccupying force鈥� on the ground, it does not rule out ground troops. A cost-effective argument might well be made for US Special Operations troops on the ground, says White. 鈥淕et them in there and help the rebels control their forces, and give them good anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons,鈥� he says.
But all these operations would lead to an as-yet unasked question: What is the ultimate goal? If it is to remove Qaddafi, a no-fly zone and even bombing his current military positions would do little. 鈥淪o are you willing to attack Qaddafi in his headquarters?鈥� Cordesman asks.
What鈥檚 more, what if there are civilian casualties or if a new regime in Libya doesn鈥檛 meet expectations? 鈥淗ow do you live with the consequences?鈥� he adds. In a case where the US may be directly or indirectly involved in nation-building, 鈥淗ow prepared are allied states鈥� to take over such a mission?
Schwartz for his part posed these provocative questions in a way that that gave some insight into the planning in which his staff is now busily involved. 鈥淭he question is: Is a no-fly zone the last step,鈥� he asked, 鈥渙r is it the first step?鈥�
