The no-fly zone in the 2011 Libya intervention, and its subsequent non-use in Syria, are best understood by examining it as a result of the ideational competition within the Obama administration amid an uncertain, though less permissive international environment. This analysis builds on previous case studies by treating ideas as an intervening variable that mediates between systemic conditions and state behaviour. Unlike earlier chapters on Iraq and Bosnia, this analysis must rely less on primary sources, as many relevant documents remain classified. This restriction limits the direct evidentiary support for the arguments presented in this chapter. Despite these limitations, a detailed examination has been conducted using a careful triangulation of secondary sources alongside a variety of both edited and unedited materials. This approach provides a comprehensive view of the administration's decision-making process. While this chapter cannot conclusively prove its interpretation of events or entirely rule out alternative explanations, the richly detailed narrative constructed from available sources should allow readers to assess the plausibility of the arguments made and form their own conclusions about the events surrounding the implementation of the no-fly zone in Libya.

Scholarly discussions on the 2011 intervention have covered aspects such as the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P) norm (Bellamy and Williams, 2011; Chesterman, 2011; Nuruzzaman, 2022), alliance management (Davidson, 2013) and decision making within the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) (Adler-Nissen and Pouliot, 2014; Martin, 2022). Further discussions draw parallels with other international conflicts like those in Côte d’Ivoire and Syria (Kildron, 2012; Rees, 2022).