This is a very disturbing turn of events. Yesterday, as we all know, the UN Security Council in a vote of 10-0 (with 5 abstaining) Authorized a “No-Fly” zone in Libya plus:

Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures … to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council

“All necessary measures” is an authorization of war. How far witll we go? I do not know, but the indicators that this article puts forth are that we are contemplating more than a “No-Fly” zone (as authorized by the UN):

At Thursday morning’s hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Air Force Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz said that Qaddafi’s forces had reestablished control over large swaths of territory and that the Libyan leader had tens of planes and hundreds of helicopters in use.

He called the plan to impose a no-fly zone in a few days “overly optimistic” and said “it would take upwards of a week.”

Schwartz was also clear that while the U.S. military can impose a no-fly zone, that’s not likely to stop Qaddafi all by itself. He also noted that to do so effectively might require diverting some resources from the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“The question is, is a no-fly zone the last step or is it the first step?” Schwartz said.
Asked by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) whether a no-fly zone could turn the momentum, Scwartz replied, “A no-fly zone, sir, would not be sufficient.”

Will we stop at “not…sufficient”? Notice, too, that Schwartz indicates that this may divert resources from Iraq and Afghanistan. Does this make sense? Only to the Tranzi-Progressives that want to see American military power broken. What will we do? Bare minimum it looks like they want us to be providing close air support and anti-armor capabilities to the “rebels”:

Asked what he learned from the briefing, Graham said, “I learned that it’s not too late, that the opposition forces are under siege but they are holding, and that with a timely intervention, a no-fly zone and no-drive zone, we can turn this thing around.”

Asked exactly what the first wave of attacks would look like, Graham said, “We ground his aircraft and some tanks start getting blown up that are headed toward the opposition forces.”

No matter what spin you put on that, it is becoming co-belligerants with the Islamists, supporting their goals, and either winning or losing with them. Does this strike you as sound US Foreign Policy? We don’t really even know what the “rebels” represent except that that are anti-Qaddafi. That is hardly reassuring.

As has been reiterated on this blog by several authors, there is no compelling American interest in Libya. Even if these “rebels” were Jeffersonian Democrats there would not be compelling American National Interest here, but there is no indication beyond wishful thinking that they are anything resembling such a thing. Their battle-flag has the Islamic Crecent and Star on it, telling the observant that they are Islamists of one stripe or another. Does it make sense to commit American blood and treasure to the establishment of yet another Islamic Republic, whether they vote on their Mullahs or not?