Rather than putting combat air patrols over Libya, it would employ ships and aircraft operating off the coast. Libyan aircraft violating the no-fly zone could be intercepted using ships armed with SM-2 surface-to-air missiles and fighter aircraft armed with AIM-120 air-to-air missiles, which can hit targets beyond visual range.

While these systems are most effective against high-flying aircraft, they would also make it more difficult for Libyan jets to bomb opposition positions or conduct low-level strafing runs against civilian populations in the north. And these systems would be particularly effective if Libyan rebel forces simultaneously employ shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, which are best against low-flying targets.

This approach would obviate the need to suppress Libyan air defenses before imposing a no-fly zone, since coalition aircraft would operate beyond their effective range. In addition, rather than employing aircraft from carriers, it would use a much smaller number of land-based combat aircraft that can be refueled in the air.

This concept would underscore the critical distinction between air control and air denial. Extended-range precision-guided weapons can deny an opponent the use of airspace (especially a weaker opponent) without requiring actual control of the airspace. Maintaining a stand-off no-fly zone wouldn’t require total control over Libya’s airspace—only the ability to deny Gadhafi the effective use of that airspace.

While a host of political and strategic considerations could lead U.S. and NATO leaders not to impose a no-fly zone, there is no insurmountable operational hurdle. The U.S. and its allies will likely face future dilemmas about whether to intervene in a country to prevent mass atrocities. In the near term, continued advances in extended-range precision-guided weaponry will offer various options for projecting power.

In the longer-term, as guided weapons proliferate more widely, other countries may use them to constrain U.S. power-projection and deny it regional access. But for the time being at least, the U.S. continues to have the advantage, should U.S. leaders choose to exploit it.