Since the Libyan protests of February 18th grew into the current rebellion, the international clamor for an American-imposed no-fly zone to protect the rebels from Gaddafi's air forces has waxed and waned. The idea's supporters - an odd mixture of American neocons, Arab leaders and Europeans - had failed to convince President Obama to do more than issue tough but ineffective statements pointed at Muammar Gaddafi. This is the tactic he used - with equal lack of effect - against Hosni Mubarak during the protests that eventually drove the Egyptian from power.

Mubarak was forced out by Egyptian protesters after the Egyptian army refused to take sides. In Libya, the forces loyal to Gaddafi have waged an effective air and ground campaign against armed rebels, some of whom have defected from the Libyan military. One of Gaddafi's sons predicted the imminent defeat of the rebel forces.

On Wednesday, in a course reversal, the Obama administration began lobbying UN Security Council members for a resolution which would authorize the no-fly zone and - as Ambassador Susan Rice said - could go much farther.

According to an AP report, Rice told reporters - after an eight-hour session with Security Council members -- said, "We are interested in a broad range of actions that will effectively protect civilians and increase the pressure on the Gadhafi regime to halt the killing and to allow the Libyan people to express themselves in their aspirations for the future freely and peacefully." She added, "Those include discussion of a no-fly zone, but the U.S. view is that ... a no-fly zone has inherent limitations in terms of protection of civilians at immediate risk."

The Libyan rebels - who at one point claimed control of half the nation - are reportedly fighting to retain control of the eastern city of Ajdabiyah, the remaining barrier between Gaddafi's forces and the rebels last stronghold of Benghazi. News reports have featured rebels asking for establishment of the no-fly zone immediately, some asking for air strikes against Gaddafi's forces.

Even Gaddafi's former ambassador to the US, Ali Aujali - who has sided with the rebels - claimed in a television interview that American interests in Libya should cause us to intervene.

But what are those interests? America - unlike France, Italy and some other NATO members - doesn't rely on Libyan oil. There are no Americans being held hostage there (though four New York Times correspondents are missing.) In truth, there is no compelling American interest sufficient to justify deploying US forces there.

French President Nicholas Sarkozy heard President Obama's demands for Gaddafi to quit, looked at his cards (which vary in value based on Libyan oil exports), then called and raised the bet by recognizing a provisional rebel government, which isn't otherwise visible. His foreign minister, Alain Juppe, is vocally supporting UN action.

Even before the UN meetings, Arab nations - led by Saudi Arabia - were calling for military intervention in Libya to establish a "no-fly" zone to protect rebels from Gaddafi's air forces.

It's fair to ask why the Europeans - with or without the Arab nations - don't undertake the no-fly zone operation and the other operations, such as destruction of Gaddafi's air bases or landing forces to protect civilians. The lesson of Libya is one that our allies, both real and false, have yet to admit: that while American power is limited, theirs - by their choice - is nearly nil.

Italy, whose interests are directly implicated, has already indicated it doesn't want NATO forces - meaning US forces - operating from the Sigonella base against Libya. Without Sigonella, any air forces not based in Egypt would have to fly about 1500 miles from bases in Saudi Arabia or long distances from Turkey (assuming Turkish cooperation in an Arab effort which is at best, a long shot). Egypt's temporary government almost certainly lacks the ability to support such an operation even if it wanted to. None of those arrangements would likely work.

Even if Arab air forces could operate over such great distances, they lack the command and control structure to enable them to operate together. Kuwaitis, for example, aren't going to fly under Saudi command. Which leaves the effort to sea-based forces.

Britain has one carrier - the jump-jet equipped Ark Royal - which lacks the capability to support the variety of aircraft that would be needed. France's one carrier - the Charles de Gaulle - is a pretty ship which hasn't managed to spend a lot of time out of repair yards. Which means any operation will have to be done from US navy carriers with the support of US Air Force long-range assets such as AWACS radar controllers, tankers and possibly JSTARS battle management aircraft, most of which are already employed elsewhere.

A no-fly zone can be created and maintained, but only at great expense and the risk of US fliers' lives. The risks which will result from depriving the war effort - in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere - of air assets is considerable. Two carriers are usually stationed to support Afghanistan alone, which means at least two others have to be refitting and preparing to rotate to replace them. We have ten carriers, soon to be nine (the Enterprise is soon to be retired) and two of them are now on station in Japan assisting in the relief operation there.

But we shouldn't intervene. Our interests in Libya are simply not sufficient to justify our intervention.

Libya should be a lesson for every nation that has relied for so long on the American superpower. For too long, our NATO allies have neglected their defenses, spending their national treasure on social programs and such. The NATO contribution to the Afghanistan war is minimal and that is being drawn down precipitously.

Even Britain, our most stalwart ally through two world wars and the Cold War, has decimated its forces to such a degree that the latest round of cuts caused the Daily Telegraph to editorialize that if David Cameron's administration didn't reconsider the cuts, it might be willfully abandoning military capabilities that Britain might need very quickly.

Other nations - at least those who aspire to protecting freedom -- have an obligation to invest sufficiently in their own defense so that they can protect their interests when ours do not coincide.

Libya isn't our fight. If anyone should intervene, it is the Arab nations and the Europeans who should take up the gauntlet. But they can't.