If intervention is what is called for, it must be done decisively. Half-measures like a no-fly zone just won't cut it.
If I were a betting man, I would wager that the Security Council passes a resolution authorizing a no-fly zone for Libya. Probably today.
A no fly zone carries the political risks of military intervention, but without the intended humanitarian benefits.
For the last week, a debate has been raging on whether or not the international community — or even just a single country — should impose a no-fly zone over Libya. A list of some of the people who have weighed in on the prospects of a no-fly zone, loosely organized into pro vs. con. Think of it as a Cliff Notes version of the debate.
If you think military intervention in Libya is the way to go, a Security Council resolution is not something that is nice to have. It is a must. Otherwise, it is exceedingly difficult to see how such a mission would at all be in the service of American interests.
A potential No Fly Zone is only a humanitarian half measure. It would let the international community say that it is doing something, but there is very little a No Fly Zone can actually do to stop ongoing slaughter.