No-Fly or a No-Go?

President Obama endorsed the no-fly zone over Libya passed in the United Nations Security Council last night, but you have to wonder why the West wasn't able to get it passed and up and running earlier . . . and how it could possibly make any difference now.

Oh, and the U.N. also passed a resolution authorizing the use of force in Libya.

Obama has said that the noose is tightening around Muammar el-Qaddafi, but it seems the Libya leader is doing a pretty good job pushing the thumbscrews into the rebels with that noose around his neck. Pro-Qaddafi forces have taken numerous rebel-held cities and are now poised to retake Benghazi, the largest and most important city in Libya outside Tripoli. If I may use a metaphor involving American football (a very militaristic sport), issuing a no-fly zone or an authorization of force at this juncture is like the Arizona Cardinals being down 56-7 late in the fourth quarter and 95 yards from San Francisco's goalpost and trying for a field goal.

The British and French are very much for this no-fly zone, which means the Americans - already preoccupied with two fronts elsewhere in the Muslim world - will enforce it. Look, I'm no foreign policy expert, but if Nicolas Sarkozy thinks this is a good idea, France should take the lead and send their Mirages up as soon as possible. Then the Brits can send in the Royal Air Force. Sound like a fair deal to you? Let our allies lead for a change and admit we Americans can't handle everything anymore.

Say, isn't there a nuclear crisis in Japan we're helping out with?

Maybe a Benghazi border, like the Pusan Perimeter in the Korean War that saved South Korea from annihilation, is in the making, but I doubt it.

But maybe I'm wrong. Qaddafi has declared a cease-fire in response to the U.N. declarations. Or maybe he did so because he's already winning anyway.