More like this
From Iraq to Libya: a history of no-fly zones
The West has the might, but does it have the will to implement a third no-fly zone in two decades?
Pressure is growing for a no-fly zone to be enforced over Libya to protect rebel forces in the strife-torn country from Colonel Gaddafi's airforce.
Arab states in the Gulf have backed the idea and are calling for a meeting of the Arab League to discuss it, while Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the secretary-general of the 57-member Organisation of the Islamic Conference, is also backing a no-fly zone.
Behind the scenes, the British and French governments are preparing a resolution in the United Nations and Nato defence ministers are set to discuss the move on Thursday.
But there is no shortage of critics lining up to warn against military action of any kind and questioning the motives of those calling for a no-fly zone.
With no guarantee that the measures would do anything to unseat Gaddafi, would it be anything other than a gesture aimed at mollifying the Western public's kneejerk cry that 'something must be done'?
The first post-Cold War no-fly zone in recent years was implemented in 1991 after the first Gulf War. As Saddam Hussein lashed out at the Kurds in the north of Iraq and Shiite Muslims in the south, the US, UK and France - without UN backing - proclaimed two no-fly zones.
The restrictions were maintained until the beginning of the second Gulf War in 2003, during which time a handful of Iraqi fighter planes were shot down and many ground-based air defense systems were bombed. The US lost two Blackhawk helicopters in a friendly fire incident, but otherwise there were no Western casualties, despite fighter jets initially being under fire on a daily basis.
The next no-fly zone was implemented over Bosnia and Herzegovina as part of Nato's intervention in the Balkan conflict. It is a good example of how 'mission creep' can act on what is supposed to be a defensive measure.
Between April 12, 1993 and December 20, 1995, more than 100,000 sorties were flown by crews from 12 Nato countries. This time, the objectives of the no-fly zone were set out in two UN Security Council resolutions, 781 and 816, and there was wider international support than there had been for the Iraqi operations.
The mission began as an attempt to stop the Bosnian Serbs using their total control of the airspace over the territory to attack their enemies, but soon mutated into an offensive mission with Nato first providing close ground support to UN troops on the ground then striking against Bosnian Serb targets.
There is little doubt about the effectiveness of the Iraqi and Balkan no-fly zones and the Libyan air force, with fewer than 200 fighter planes, would pose little threat to a Nato force.
Militarily, the West is well-prepared to impose a no-fly zone. The US Sixth Fleet, based at Naples, includes two aircraft carriers and has a notional strength of 175 planes. Britain, meanwhile, maintains two airbases on Cyprus.
But the big question is whether there is the diplomatic will to get involved in a situation that could become a relatively long-term mission should Gaddafi remain in power.
Britain is cutting back on its armed forces - the aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal was controversially withdrawn from service only this year - and many within military circles are questioning the wisdom of committing to new missions.
Meanwhile in the US, does president Obama really want to go into the 2012 election year with the possibility of an open-ended military commitment in a country where America has little strategic interest?
Some are also asking what the West expects to do in Libya. Douglas Barrie of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, told Reuters: "There's no hard-and-fast rule in the establishment of a no- fly zone that you have to go in and take out all of your opponents air defences. It's desirable in that you would minimise the risks to your own air assets, but you don't have to do it. It comes down to how much risk you are willing to accept."
And even at the UN, there is no general consensus on what can realistically be achieved. Barbara Plett, the BBC's UN correspondent said: "Even amongst supporters there is scepticism about the wisdom and effectiveness of a no-fly zone, some diplomats suggest it would be more of a political measure to satisfy public demands for action." ·
