The Obama administration has shown little enthusiasm for the no-fly zone idea in reviewing a series of options. Gates has said that beginning the flights would require an assault on Libyan air defenses, a step tantamount to war. Other officials have noted that the tactic may be ineffective in part because Gadhafi appears to be using his planes sparingly.
Nonetheless, a no-fly zone has become the best-known option and the one that European allies, in particular, consider an effective international response.
So an option that would have little practical effect but would look like action and would be enforced by America is considered "an effective international response" by Europeans.
No doubt. And thus we sum up the worth of the international community to maintaining the peace.
I'm with the Obama adminsitration on this. While I disagree that a no-fly mission must include suppression of enemy air defenses, it is still a pointless idea designed to look like action. It makes us seem involved and so if our side loses, we lose even more prestige.
