There are many times when plodding in international relations is good. So generally I haven’t had much of a problem with the Obama administration’s deliberately slow and painstaking approach to the rest of the world.
But there are also times to act swiftly and decisively. And the time for action in Libya is now (or rather a couple of weeks ago). So for whatever good it does, I’ll add my voice to those calling on Obama to get behind a no-fly zone at the very least. A Washington Post editorial suggests other possible actions in support of Libya’s anti-Gaddafi rebels, including “providing weapons to the rebels, offering inducements to Gaddafi loyalists to defect, jamming Libyan military radio transmissions or bombing Mr. Gaddafi’s tanks and artillery when they move east.” I’m not sure about the last option, but the other ones make sense.
While I applaud the British and French governments for being more forthright than Obama in advocating a no-fly zone, I have a question: What is stopping them from acting on their own? Surely both countries have air forces capable of enforcing a no-fly zone. How much international approval do they need– especially after even the Arab League endorsed the idea?
And aside from Gaddafi and the Stop the War Coalition, who would try to stop them?
Would it be humiliating for Obama if the British and French acted without the US? Probably. But he could avoid that humiliation by doing the right thing and joining them.
Update: A saddening report from National Public Radio’s Lourdes Garcia-Navarro, who recently left Libya.