An air exclusion zone seems a concept that is defined for itself: an area for which it is forbidden to fly. Very easy. But if we think a little further, there are some interesting questions. This area involves absolutely no artifacts that can fly over an area. Make a decision like military and political implications, diplomatic.
To implement this you need to attack, they need to intervene militarily in the area, this may mean victims. Should be advised to commercial aircraft to divert their aircraft. Basically the idea is to disable the Libyan air defenses. Speaking of Libya has decided to apply it to defend against rebel forces Gaddafi.
It must determine where and how many air defense resources in Libya. Blocking the air does not mean stop attacks by land Gaddafi. When throughout history have made similar decisions, for example in Iraq in 1991 or the former Yugoslavia 1992. In the Iraqi case the measure was taken by U.S., UK and France without the UN.
This action lasted for more than a decade, 12 years to be specific, and did not stop Saddam Hussein ruled until 2003. Different was the following year when war in the Balkans and the UN mandate was deployed NATO-led military air traffic ban in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Even so, the measure could not prevent tragedies like the Serbian siege of Sarajevo and the slaughter of civilians in Srebrenica.
The area remained until 1995. The two cases are very different and had very different contexts, whereas in the first such measure was taken as a result of war, the second was the precedent of the war against Milosevik. The similarities to the Libyan case need not mean too much. In applying this principle fly zone is a measure to protect against attacks from rebels Gaddafi Libyans from the air.
The Libyan leader threatens Misrata and seems to need to fly over to be with her. Now that the Democrat Obama seems to not want to take the attitude of the Bush mandate, which invaded Afghanistan or Iraq without international agreement, reached late West in an attempt to be the world's policeman? 
To implement this you need to attack, they need to intervene militarily in the area, this may mean victims. Should be advised to commercial aircraft to divert their aircraft. Basically the idea is to disable the Libyan air defenses. Speaking of Libya has decided to apply it to defend against rebel forces Gaddafi.
It must determine where and how many air defense resources in Libya. Blocking the air does not mean stop attacks by land Gaddafi. When throughout history have made similar decisions, for example in Iraq in 1991 or the former Yugoslavia 1992. In the Iraqi case the measure was taken by U.S., UK and France without the UN.
This action lasted for more than a decade, 12 years to be specific, and did not stop Saddam Hussein ruled until 2003. Different was the following year when war in the Balkans and the UN mandate was deployed NATO-led military air traffic ban in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Even so, the measure could not prevent tragedies like the Serbian siege of Sarajevo and the slaughter of civilians in Srebrenica.
The area remained until 1995. The two cases are very different and had very different contexts, whereas in the first such measure was taken as a result of war, the second was the precedent of the war against Milosevik. The similarities to the Libyan case need not mean too much. In applying this principle fly zone is a measure to protect against attacks from rebels Gaddafi Libyans from the air.
The Libyan leader threatens Misrata and seems to need to fly over to be with her. Now that the Democrat Obama seems to not want to take the attitude of the Bush mandate, which invaded Afghanistan or Iraq without international agreement, reached late West in an attempt to be the world's policeman?
No comments:
Post a Comment