For It Before They Become Against It

Let's see if I can summarize the no-fly debate so far.

Only America can effectively do the job. We'd do 90% of the heavy lifting even with allies.

We wouldn't dare do it on our own, so want someone else to authorize the mission.

We need NATO at the very least because unless we want to deploy 3 or 4 aircraft carriers to the Mediterranean Sea to do the job, we'll need Italian air bases, if nothing else.

NATO wants a regional endorsement of a no-fly zone over Libya before authorizing it.

The Arab League asked the UN to authorize a no-fly zone.

Russia and China are likely to veto any such UN Security Council resolution.

But NATO says that the Arab League request to the UN is enough to authorize a no-fly zone.

So if anything goes wrong, the Arab League can say they never authorized NATO to carry out a no-fly zone--they only asked the UN to do it.

But it may be moot since Germany--a major NATO nation--says they don't want to get involved in (another) war in North Africa.

In the real world, aside from all the talk, a no-fly zone won't affect Khaddafi's offensive since Libyan air power has been a minor component of the loyalist offensive.

So the rebels will continue to get their butts handed to them regardless of what the sainted international community does or does not do regarding a no-fly zone. They'll likely be defeated before they can pass that "global test" to earn help.

Isn't multi-lateralism grand?