Last Monday, I wrote in support of the idea of a no-fly zone, while my colleague John Carney opposed it.
I wrote then:
" But—and this is perhaps the critical point—my greatest hope would be that the credible threat of a no-fly zone by the United States would be enough to persuade Col. Qaddafi to vacate the country."
While my expectations have fallen short of their ultimate aim, at least part of what I hoped for seems to be coming to pass.
While Col. Qaddafi appears to have no intention of leaving Libya anytime soon, the U.N. use of force resolution would appear to be a major diplomatic victory—if not in getting the colonel to vacate the country, at least in the battle to stave off his continued massacre of his own people.
It's too soon to declare victory in the battle to protect Libya's civilian population, because there is no telling what mischief Qaddafi may yet attempt to perpetrate. (A man willing to use airpower against his own people clearly possesses a great maleficent determination.)
And the impact of the no-fly zone on the long-term viability of the Qaddafi regime also remains to be seen.
But the open question that still remains is this: Why delay so long in implementing the use of force resolution in the U.N.?
Specifically, if a no-fly zone is a good idea today it stands to reason that it would have been a better idea two weeks ago.
That is the Libyan no-fly zone would have been a far better idea before Qaddafi's campaign against his own people had claimed so very many civilian lives.
Questions? Comments? Email us atNetNet@cnbc.com
Follow NetNet on Twitter @ twitter.com/CNBCnetnet
Facebook us @ www.facebook.com/NetNetCNBC