Will Wilkinson claims they are:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/03/war_theatre

Excerpt:

So what is the attraction to no-fly zones? I’m afraid it is that no-fly zones are a theatrical way of taking a stand on the side of righteousness without seeming to put much at risk. This combination of potent symbolism and apparently limited commitment is catnip to politicians. If something simply must be done to prevent a “humanitarian crisis”, it would be better for interested allied forces simply to declare war on Mr Qaddafi’s state and intervene aggressively on the side of the rebels. However, the prospect of additional wars in the Middle East is certainly unpalatable to the American public at this point, especially since the situation in Libya has no clear bearing on American security. And I’m sure the situation is similar elsewhere. No-fly zones, which allow countries to keep one foot in and one foot out, are easier for everyone to swallow.

1. Is Will right that these moves are best understood as symbolic gestures?

2. If Will is right about the facts (i.e., that the moves are symbolic and that by themselves they make things worse), then would this be just another example of repugnant politics?