no-fly zone

Those Pesky No Fly Zones

The following editoral was made available on the State of Georgia Tea Party’s Facebook account and has been re-posted here with permission.

Much is made of the 2011 No Fly Zone over Libya. President Obama says that he imposed the No Fly Zone over Libya to prevent Mummar Ghadaffi from killing innocent civilians. There is one problem with this statement – No Fly Zones don’t prevent dictators from killing innocent civilians and a No Fly Zone is wholly incapable of preventing mass slaughter of civilians. Sadaam Hussein killed tens of thousands of Iraqi Marsh Arabs, Shites, and Kurds under our No Fly Zone in Iraq from 1991 to 2003. Likewise the No Fly Zone did nothing to stop ethnic cleaning in Bosnia from 1993-1995.    A No Fly Zone accomplishes one thing, it keeps people from flying fixed wing aircraft within airspace that you don’t want them to fly in – helicopters are a different problem.  In reality No Fly Zones have been around since the invention of the airplane, we just called it something else until 1991.  It should be mentioned that prior to No Fly Zones we had No Float Zones and No Boot Zones.

The first No Fly Zones we’re over the battlefields of Northern France in WW 1. The Allies wanted to keep Germans from flying airplanes over France, Belgium, and Luxembourg, so they established a No Fly Zone and shot down as many German aircraft as they possibly could.  The Germans wanted to do the exact same thing, so they established their own No Fly Zone and shot down allied aircraft.

House declines to authorize intervention in Libya

On Friday, the House of Representatives declined to authorize President Barack Obama’s illegal intervention in Libya by a 123 to 295 vote:

Members of Congress sent an embarrassing message to President Obama by voting to reject a formal authorization of the use of force in Libya.

The House on Friday voted down a resolution similar to one recently passed in the Senate expressing support for the U.S. mission by a vote of 123 to 295.

The Associated Press reported that the vote is the first time since 1999 that Congress has voted against the president’s authority to conduct a military operation.

“The president has not made the case for committing our military to the conflict in Libya,” said Ohio Rep. Mike Turner, a Republican. “The president claims these military actions do not constitute hostilities. However, the American people know otherwise.”

The rejection is an embarrassment for Obama, who has been accused by opponents of the mission of violating the 1973 War Powers Resolution by not getting congressional approval before entering the conflict.

The House also voted down a measure that would have partially defunded the operations. However, some have noted that the resolution would have actually authorized the Libya intervention. Even Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), certainly no supporter of our tendencies to play policeman to the world, spoke out against the resolution:

Obama considers arming rebels in Libya

While Ed Schultz would ask us whether we’re with the terrorists or the President of the United States, if Barack Obama follows through on arming rebels in Libya I can’t help but think that we may be creating terrorists:

The president said he’d neither decided on nor ruled out providing arms to rebels as part of U.S. assistance in efforts to overthrow Gadhafi short of more direct American military intervention.

“I’m not ruling it out. But I’m also not ruling it in,” Obama told NBC News in an interview Tuesday evening.

“It’s fair to say that if we wanted to get weapons into Libya, we probably could,” Obama told ABC.
[…]
“But we’re not taking anything off the table at this point,” Obama said. “Our primary military goal is to protect civilian populations and to set up the no-fly zone. Our primary strategic goal is for Gadhafi to step down so that the Libyan people have an opportunity to live a decent life.”

Providing arms to the rebels could carry some political controversy, especially as questions swirl about the exact tenor of the opposition, particularly whether al Qaeda has joined rebel efforts in Libya. Some lawmakers have expressed concern about al Qaeda factions within the opposition, and there could be some pause before providing arms to those suspected of being affiliated with anti-American groups.

5 out of 6 Ain’t Bad, Right?

Back in February of 2009 I wrote an article about Obama’s War.  At that time, we didn’t know what country it would be, but we do now: Libya.  So, how did I do?

  1. Percieved threat where there is no actual threat.  Commit an invasion where no harm has been done to us directly.  Yep
  2. Enforce UN resolutions.  Yep
  3. To remove a dictator.  Yep
  4. Establish/Spread democracy.  Yep
  5. Mercantilism.  (Secure oil or other natural resources) Yep
  6. False flag event.  Nope
One point about number 3.  If the President says we’re not going to remove him directly, we are in the process of removing him indirectly, by providing cover (no-fly zone) for the rebels.  We could care less about the humanitarian disaster.  All you have to do is look at Syria and Yemen to see the governments there murdering their protestors.

5 out of 6 ain’t bad, right?

Troops headed to Libya and Biden’s call for impeachment

Remember that time President Barack Obama promised Americans, weary from costly, long wars in Iraq and Aghanistan, that there would be “no boots on the ground” in Libya. Reports indicate that 2,200 Marines are headed there:

About 2,200 Marines from the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit, or 26th MEU will take part. Their mission is to help end the violence directed at the Libyan people.

“In Libya right now they are doing exactly what we need them to do. They are doing what they are told and right now that’s protecting Libyan people against Qadhafi forces,” said Captain Timothy Patrick, a Marine with the 26th MEU.

This comes as The Hill reports that Libyan dictator Moammar Ghadafi’s troops are showing no signs of letting up despite the enforcement of the UN-sanctioned “no-fly zone.” Of course, those that seek to serve as apologists for the Obama Administration would have us labeled as puppy-kicking anti-interventionists, or a Glenn Greenwald notes while taking John Judis to task, we’re “guilty of indifference to the plight of the rebels and to Gadaffi’s tyranny.”

And so another war begins…

A day after France began sorties, the United States - authorized by Nobel Peace Prize winner, President Barack Obama - has launched 112 Tomahawk Cruise missiles at Libya to enforce a United Nations sanctioned “no-fly zone”:

More than 112 Tomahawk cruise missiles struck over 20 targets inside Libya today in the opening phase of an international military operation the Pentagon said was aimed at stopping attacks led by Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi and enforcing a U.N.-backed no-fly zone.

President Obama, speaking from Brazil shortly after he authorized the missile attacks, said they were part of a “limited military action” to protect the Libyan people.

“I want the American people to know that the use of force is not our first choice and it’s not a choice I make lightly,” Obama said. “But we cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people that there will be no mercy.”

The first air strikes, in what is being called “Operation Odyssey Dawn,” were launched from a mix of U.S. surface ships and one British submarine in the Mediterranean Sea at 2 pm ET, Vice Adm. William E. Gortney told reporters at a Pentagon briefing.

They targeted Libyan air defense missile sites, early warning radar and key communications facilities around Tripoli, Misratah, and Surt, but no areas east of that or near Benghazi. Because of darkness over Libya, Gortney said it was too early to determine the strikes’ effectiveness.

UN approves no-fly zones in Libya

Last night, the United Nations unanimously approved a resolution establishing a “no-fly zone” over part of Libya as dictator Muammar Gaddafi tries to put down an uprising inspired by events in Egypt:

The U.N. Security Council passed a resolution endorsing a no-fly zone to halt government troops now around 100 km (60 miles) from Benghazi. It also authorised “all necessary measures” — code for military action — to protect civilians against Gaddafi’s forces.

But time was clearly running short for the city that has been the heart of Libya’s revolution.

Residents said the Libyan air force unleashed three air raids on the city of 670,000 on Thursday and there has been fierce fighting along the Mediterranean coastal road as Gaddafi moves to crush the month-old insurrection.

French diplomatic sources said military action could come within hours, and could include France, Britain and possibly the United States and one or more Arab states; but a U.S. military official said no immediate U.S. action was expected following the vote.

So, not only are we involved in a seemingly neverending and unpopular conflict in Aghanistan that we should have been out of years ago but aren’t thanks to the war in Iraq where we are still active, now we are going to get involved in an unconstitutional - yes, RedState, it’s an unconstitutional conflict - in Libya.

We don’t need to get involved in another conflict, UN backing or not. Taxpayers have had to shoulder the substantial costs of Afghanistan and Iraq and our continued intervention in the affairs of other nations. We can’t afford to keep doing this.


The views and opinions expressed by individual authors are not necessarily those of other authors, advertisers, developers or editors at United Liberty.