I have been thinking about this option,weighing its merits and its drawbacks. In the course of my musings I did a little research. First off our military does not suMFort it. Makes you wonder? Who does suMFort it? Well Wolfowitz rose from the grave to suMFort it. And he knmows lots about the military,being the chief architect of the Iraq debacle. Other hawks and conservatives,including John McCain are pushing for it. Well,what is a no fly zone? Sounds simple but it ain"t. You need to keep an air umbrella aloft at all hours. Thats alot of planes to cover Libya's 1100 mile coast, and thats saying nothning of the interior. You have to take out all the air defenses,SAM sites etc with surgical air strikes.One forgets that the no fly zones put up by Bush after the 1st gulf war were comparatively easier since we had already destroyed Saddam's air force and air efense umbrella. We flew with impunity. Not so in Libya. Libya has maybe 200 Mig and Sukhoi aircraft, of which maybe half have been grounded or destroyed since the rebellion began. She also has maybe 150 various soviet SAM batteries. Taking out those and destroying air assets on the ground would be acts of war and create large casualties. Then we would have to jam there radar meaning more planes aloft. Fighters,bombers, AWACs'electronic warfare aircraft etc. Thats alot of planes. There is one aircraft carrier on station and that is very little considering what is needed. Italian airbases run by the US and Nato could be used as they were when Clinton imposed a no fly zone over Bosnia. Do we have the air assets to do this? And still provide needed air cover in Afghanistan and protection in Iraq and the gulf oil areas? Maybe thats why the military is reluctant.