Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 7:10 PM ET, 03/ 9/2011

That U.N. no-fly zone

By Charles Krauthammer

After assuring us that I was fantasizing in claiming that anyone anywhere is asking for U.S intervention in Libya, Anne Applebaum explains that what is instead being discussed is a "no-fly zone -- but only as a U.N. or NATO action" and "with as little unilateral 'American' input as possible."

I see: a U.N. no-fly zone. Using the Congolese air force? Supported by offshore Russian aircraft carriers? Liberal internationalists tend to use the phrases "United Nations" and "international community" and "world opinion" so promiscuously that they actually come to believe these fictions have some reality. There is no such thing as a U.N. no-fly zone. A U.N. no-fly zone is nothing more than a no-fly zone enforced by the only power that can do it -- the United States -- under cover of a U.N. resolution.

NATO? As in the current NATO operation in Afghanistan, where German troops don't go out at night? Where the real fighting is carried out by the United States (with a major assistance from, as usual, the trusty British)?

And now a NATO no-fly zone over Libya. Who do you think will be taking out Gaddafi's surface-to-air missiles and other antiaircraft infrastructure? The Belgian air force? Sure, Italy and Spain will participate -- they will allow the U.S. aircraft pulverizing Libya to take off from their bases.

What Applebaum really means is not U.N. or NATO action but U.N.- and NATO-authorized action -- undertaken overwhelmingly by the United States. No one has any doubt about which air force has the power, the training and the experience to carry out a no-fly zone. Applebaum's objection to my claim that the world is looking for American intervention is nothing more than a complaint that I refuse to observe the niceties -- the hypocrisy and the disingenuousness -- of those who want America to save them but behind a fog of pseudo-multilateralism.

Applebaum's second point is that this wish for a multilateral fig leaf, this allergy to too-overt American assistance, this demand for American rescue with as little U.S. visible presence as possible, is the result of the Iraq war and the blow it delivered to the U.S. reputation in the region.

This is nonsense. To believe that you have to believe that this phenomenon started in 2003. In fact, this allergy to an overt American presence has been a constant feature of U.S.-Arab relations going back more than a half-century. Since the Second World War -- not the Iraq war -- the Saudis have depended on us for their very wealthy independence. But they insist that any U.S. military presence be disguised and hidden. No display of American soldiering or uniforms. We anchor the Fifth Fleet in Bahrain. Indeed, that's the reason so much of our protection of the Gulf states is offshore. Better no one see us at all.

Why did George Bush 41 have to gather such a massive coalition before the United States could (with, again, significant assistance mostly from the British) liberate Kuwait? Did our Syrian and Egyptian "allies" take a square inch of Kuwaiti territory? Of course not. They, like the dozens of other superfluous "coalition partners," were precisely the kind of window dressing people are looking for in Libya right now -- so one could pretend as much as possible not to be the beneficiary of U.S. intervention. Hence our decision to let Kuwaiti troops march into Kuwait City on liberation day (a farcical reprise of our allowing de Gaulle to parade first into Paris on its liberation): to perpetuate the fiction of self-liberation and to publicly minimize the American role.

It's a basic characteristic of superpower-client relations. Everyone wants American money, American protection, Americans' favor -- but no one wants to be seen taking it. This stigmatization of U.S. aid is born of envy, pride and resentment -- and has been around forever. It is as attributable to the Iraq war as is climate change. Though I'm sure the case for that connection is being developed as we speak.

By Charles Krauthammer  | March 9, 2011; 7:10 PM ET
Categories:  Krauthammer  | Tags:  Charles Krauthammer  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: All things defunded
Next: One thing those taped NPR execs probably didn't get wrong

Comments

While I agree with most of this commentary, I am a little bit annoyed that there is no acknowledgement that Canadian Troops have fought aggressively and lost many lives in the Afghanistan conflict.

Posted by: laurentianenterprises | March 9, 2011 8:19 PM | Report abuse

Bush 41 hesitated in establishing the Iraq no fly zones after the liberation of Kuwait. This gave Saddam enough time to massacre the Shi'ites and gas the Kurds that rebelled against him and led to another 12 years of suffering in Iraq under Saddam. Obama and Clinton need to stop waiting for UN approval and not make the same mistake in Libya. Recognize the rebels in Benghazi, destroy Qaddafi's air force, and then let his own people string Qaddafi up like Mussolini.

Posted by: Manny32901 | March 9, 2011 8:43 PM | Report abuse

If there was a no fly zone throughout the Middle East, 500 Palestinian Children would be alive today... The Palestinian People have no air force, and in the Israeli Jewish assault on Gaza they were "Sitting Ducks" - to be culled.

Posted by: mjrmike39157 | March 10, 2011 5:14 AM | Report abuse

If a no fly operated throughout the Middle East 500 Palestine Children would be alive today.. The Palestinian People in Gaza City had no defence to the Jewish onslaught in 2009, they have no Air Force so that when the Jews unleashed phosphorous bombs on the population, 500 Children were killed and maimed.

Posted by: mjrmike39157 | March 10, 2011 5:20 AM | Report abuse

The unvarnished truth from Dr. K. Ms. Applebaum has fabulous credentials but her agenda gets in the way of the simple truth. It would be nice if our NATO "allies" paid for some of the protection we've been providing for 60 years.

Posted by: PaulOPinion1 | March 10, 2011 7:15 AM | Report abuse

Now, now, mjrmike..it's the "Zionists", remember?

Posted by: eloris | March 10, 2011 10:37 AM | Report abuse

The New York Times’s Unlikely Warhawk Nick Kristoff writes:

“For all the hand-wringing in Washington about a no-fly zone over Libya, that’s the verdict of Gen. Merrill McPeak, a former Air Force chief of staff. He flew more than 6,000 hours, half in fighter aircraft, and helped oversee no-fly zones in Iraq and the Adriatic, and he’s currently mystified by what he calls the “wailing and gnashing of teeth” about imposing such a zone on Libya."

General McPeak was deliciously blunt:

“I can’t imagine an easier military problem,” he said. “If we can’t impose a no-fly zone over a not even third-rate military power like Libya, then we ought to take a hell of a lot of our military budget and spend it on something usable.”

He continued: “Just flying a few jets across the top of the friendlies would probably be enough to ground the Libyan Air Force, which is the objective.”

At the risk of interrupting a golf game or a White House diner party: Can the General please call President Waldo ?

Posted by: pvilso24 | March 10, 2011 11:36 AM | Report abuse

I understand what he is saying, but still I think let's stay out. If the French government is so hot on intervention, let them lead it.

Posted by: amcalabrese | March 11, 2011 4:24 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company