Wow...its nice to hear from some new/old voices, even if all they do is argue.

But why argue over Kosovo or Afghanistan, which are the past, when we can argue about the present?

There seems to be a clear case for humanitarian intervention in Libya in the form of a no-fly zone. Also, it would be in various national interests, since if successful, it would cause the new regime to look favorably on whoever helps them. Libya is in Europe's back yard. Also, it would redeem the Megrahi debacle, and it might prevent a flood of refugees.

The US, for reasons not at all clear, is, so far, unwilling. I fear that the current, unanimous UN resolution was achieved at the cost of a deal, that the US would not intervene, or at least, would not ask the UN for a more aggressive resolution.

Aside: I am interested in what others are hearing about the price that may have been paid for UN unanimity. Of course, it helped that Libya's own UN ambassador turned against his boss!

As for the need for collective action before e.g. Germany can undertake operations: the recent UN resolution seems to permit enforcement of, at least, an embargo, possibly also protection for humanitarian assistance.

If the UN won't bless it, a no-fly zone could presumably be blessed by NATO, or the appropriate EU mechanism (EUFOR? Hard to keep track).

Lind's FP article only cites military spending against the myth of European pacifism. But if military spending is seen as a jobs program or an export subsidy, which it often is, then it doesn't disprove the myth.

An EU-initiated no-fly zone, or perhaps even supplying the Libyan rebels with arms, would decisively dispel any myth, particularly if it was done with minimal US military involvement.

How about it?

"Is that clear enough?"

I was mainly referring to the lack of clarity from the Obama administration. I haven't heard them making the "we can't afford it / we are stretched too thin" argument, have you?

As a practical matter, we could accomplish it...perhaps our aircraft carriers are needed near SE Asia, but our air force alone has the capacity.

Should we create a no-fly zone? No, Europe should do it. I agree we don't owe Libya anything, and we're already doing more than our fair share of the heavy lifting elsewhere.

If Europe fails, should we? I think, yes. It would cost money. But so would continued unrest in Libya and the region, which would help keep oil prices high (and worse, keep them volatile).

Also, we are, as you point out, at war. It is actually a global war with many theaters. All eyes are on Libya, for the moment. We could score all kinds of goodwill around the Arab and Muslim world, which would help us in Afghanistan and make our exit from Iraq go more smoothly.

The money burn rate in Afghanistan is very high. Hypothetically, if a Libyan no-fly zone results in us eventually leaving Afghanistan even one month sooner we would have, it will be a money saver.

"the only European military to still operate an aircraft carrier"

My guess is, the Mediterranean Sea is small enough, so that military airfields in S. Europe could easily sustain the patrols.

Ideally, the Libyan rebels will prevail soon, and all this will become moot.

According to anon sources,

"[url=http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Libya-Protests-RAF-Typhoons-Could-Enforce-No-Fly-Zone-Over-Libya/Article/201103115943119?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_1&lid=ARTICLE_15943119_Libya_Protests%3A_RAF_Typhoons_Could_Enforce_No-Fly_Zone_Over_Libya]Britain is considering basing Typhoon jets at RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya[/url]"

Even the British, the least European of the EU, seem to be signalling that it would require an additional UN resolution. So we're back to the question of, what was the cost of unanimity at the earlier UN resolution?

Aside: The alleged need for UN approval makes little sense when contrasted with the defense, right here on this forum, of Russia's invasion (and eventual looting) of Georgia. The rationale of spheres of influence and the near abroad enough. The UN didn't matter; Russia's centuries of colonialism in that region didn't matter. Unquestionably, Russia is not a pacifist country, yet oddly, the notion that Russia could emerge as a threat to Europe is dismissed. Do these contradictions point to an irrational pacifism?

What is the readiness of these Med airfields? If their readiness is low, it suggests that they are seen as jobs programs, foreign aid, etc. and not as real, military assets.

In other words, we need to look beyond military spending amounts and look at the quality and purpose of that spending. Does the readiness (or lack of it) of these bases help us interpret military spending, and does it tell us something about European pacifism?

I don't know the Chinese intentions with the aircraft "carrier" but it does raise the interesting point that so many of the threats have turned out to be Potemkin villages. Kennedy's missile gap, the 80's throw weight gap (it turns out most of the Russian ICBM's couldn't have launched due to lack of maintenance, in some cases the missile silos hadn't even been pumped dry of water), Saddam's WMD, etc.

It doesn't follow that every perceived threat is an illusion, but we need to give more thought to methods for distinguishing between the two. An arms race is expensive; worse still is an arms race where the other side is faking it! The solution involves more openness and transparency.

China has enough domestic problems, and also, unspoken, has to defend itself against a land threat from Russia. Their swarm technology is intriguing but totally unproven in a large scale combat environment.

China is a long term rival that could, one day, emerge as a threat. Although they are up to no good in various parts of the world, particularly their nuclear slave client state, N. Korea, they have also shown a tendency towards restraint in limiting themselves to economic expansionism. Russia is far more likely to start a war (and indeed, has started several this decade past).