Libya: Benghazi unrest, to Civil War, to a new government and Gaddafi's death.

[Mr. Morden]

Since a quick, "clean" victory by either side now appears impossible, TNR gives a quick blurb on what it suggests are the four "most likely scenarios" of the Libya uprising:

http://www.tnr.com/article/world/85279/libya-afghanistan-iraq-somalia

Northern Iraq, Southern Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia

[Mr. Morden]

As of a week ago, I would not have expected that China and Russia would let such a resolution get through, but momentum for the no fly zone built up quickly over the last few days.

Gaddafi to be ousted as leader of Libya by Dec. 31st has shot up to 75.0 on Intrade.

[Mr. Morden]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704360404576206992835270906.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Morden]

Lugar says the US shouldn't participate in a no-fly zone unless Congress passes a declaration of war:

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/17/lugar_no_fly_zone_requires_declaration_of_war

[Mr. Morden]

Lugar says the US shouldn't participate in a no-fly zone unless Congress passes a declaration of war:

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/17/lugar_no_fly_zone_requires_declaration_of_war

Well, I'd think, and hope, that France and UK, won't wait for the US Congress to eventually find this resolution cool, France alone would apparently have big means to do that, with the UK it's still more, we would really have all necessary equipment, Italy proposed its bases, EU proposed all what it could do, really, I hope we won't wait that the guys over the Atlantic find the temperature of the Mediterranean cool enough. Maybe the earliest and the less statu quo possible would be the best since declarations of Gaddafi camp about negotiation of ceasefire could only be here to gain time, I don't know, but anyways, at worst, if some nasty things begin, if we are ready on this side of the Atlantic, I hope we won't wait for the guys over there.

Obama isn't actually going to wait for any resolution from Congress.  Lugar is one of the few voices in Congress who wants a declaration of war for this.  Most of them don't really care.

[Mr. Morden]

Here we go again - Imperialist Europeans come to Africa and start slaughtering the natives. It is appalling.

Yes, far better that Gaddafi hire some foreign mercenaries on his own dime, to slaughter the natives for him.

[Mr. Morden]

It increasingly sounds like it'll be the UK and France who are actually providing the combat planes and bombers, while the US is in more of a supporting role:

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/18/obama.no.fly/?hpt=T1

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Morden]

As an aside, the LA Times has this picture of Hillary Clinton and Sarkozy, in which Clinton looks like she's been possessed by aliens:

[Mr. Morden]

Oh yes, and how about Gaddafi's letter to Obama?

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/To-my-Dear-Obama-our-son-says-Gaddafi-defending-attack-on-rebels/articleshow/7743954.cms

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Morden]

Is Gaddafi a birther?

[Mr. Morden]

    So the no-fly zone is much more than just a no-fly zone, eh?

Yes, the UN resolution calls for much more than a no fly zone.  Which is why it's stupid that some in the media are simply calling it a no fly zone.  It's more  like a "no fly zone" + "no attack cities zone".

[Mr. Morden]

Wikipedia says that Al Arabiya confirms the rumor that Gaddafi's youngest son has died in the conflict:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khamis_al-Gaddafi

Though I can't actually read the news story that they reference, as I don't read Arabic.

[Mr. Morden]

The fact is that, at this point in the conflict, without serious actual ground forces by other countries being placed in Libya, Gaddafi will remain in control of a certain amount of Libya irregardless.  Absent that, we're just talking about whether there's a separate rebel-held part or he retakes it all.  Maybe serious aerial attacks can stop the latter, but I wonder.  A no-fly alone zone will not.

(sigh)

I lack knowledge of what's specifically going on "on the ground" right now, but my best guess is Gaddafi has figured out that if he can stay in close quarters the air strikes won’t happen.  After all, in terms of ground forces, he has a major advantage.  So, the rebels are now retreating and this time the government forces are right behind them.  The rebels keep trying to open the gap, the government keeps closing it.  Or something like that.  The rebels, become, in essence, human shields for the government forces.

Therefore, Gaddafi will wait to actually fight until he is in a town where he can use the population for protection against air strikes.  All this becomes more problematic, of course, when he gets to Benghazi or points further east where the population is less friendly and can utilize guerrilla attacks and what not.

I'm not sure I read the situation quite the same way.  The coalition isn't attacking Gaddafi's forces because they're in "close quarters" to the rebels?  I think it's more a matter of the coalition sticking to the UN mandate, which allows them to attack Gaddafi's forces to protect civilian population centers, but not simply to protect combatants.  Hence, they're not really doing anything to help the rebels when they battle Gaddafi along the road between Ajdabiya and Sirte.  But if Gaddafi tries to move in on Ajdabiya or Benghazi again, the coalition bombing will presumably resume.  (The coalition bombing currently seems to have moved more to the task of stopping in Gaddafi in Misrata, but that's probably a lost cause.)

If I were Gaddafi, the strategy I would follow would be to concentrate on retaking Misrata, plus other rebel holdouts in the west like Zintan.  Push the rebels back to Ajdabiya, but don't attack the city outright, because it would provoke more allied bombing.  Instead, leave the cities on the eastern coast to the rebels, but go out into the desert and seize the eastern oil fields.  Then just wait out the Western powers, to see if they really want to keep this up indefinitely.

Of course, the hitch is that I don't know if he still has enough loyal troops to contain the rebels like that, and simultaneously maintain law and order in that much territory.

[Mr. Morden]

I'm not sure I read the situation quite the same way.  The coalition isn't attacking Gaddafi's forces because they're in "close quarters" to the rebels?  I think it's more a matter of the coalition sticking to the UN mandate, which allows them to attack Gaddafi's forces to protect civilian population centers, but not simply to protect combatants.  Hence, they're not really doing anything to help the rebels when they battle Gaddafi along the road between Ajdabiya and Sirte.  But if Gaddafi tries to move in on Ajdabiya or Benghazi again, the coalition bombing will presumably resume.  (The coalition bombing currently seems to have moved more to the task of stopping in Gaddafi in Misrata, but that's probably a lost cause.)

Actually, by attacking tanks and artillery, they are exceeding the mandate.  It is one thing to shoot down planes, destroy them on the ground, crater airfields and take out air defenses.  It is another to take out tanks and ground artillery.

Not true.  The Security Council resolution isn't just for a no fly zone.  It also allows the coalition to attack ground units as necessary to protect civilians.

[Mr. Morden]

Gaddafi's foreign minister has defected.

Also, the BBC and NYT have reports suggesting that both the CIA and MI6 have numerous agents on the ground in Libya both to direct air strikes and gather intelligence.

And ABC says that Obama has signed a secret "presidential finding" authorizing covert aid to the rebels:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/president-obama-authorizes-covert-libyan-rebels/story?id=13259028

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Morden]

Which isn't then a "no-fly zone."

No one in any of the relevant governments ever said this was just a "no fly zone".  It's more a "no fly zone" + "no attack cities zone".  It's just media sloppiness fixating on the term "no fly zone" that has led to some confusion here.

[Mr. Morden]

Al Jazeera claims to have a credible source reporting that the rebels are now getting arms from Egypt, and that some of them are being trained by American and Egyptian special forces in a secret facility:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jL4v7x36UU

[Mr. Morden]

Gaddafi writes another letter to Obama in which he calls him "our son":

http://abcnews.go.com/International/libya-war-gadhafi-letter-obama-calls-us-president/story?id=13313823

[Mr. Morden]

What's so special about Libya.

Mostly its closeness to the European mainland.

Of course, there are other differences between this and some of the other recent humanitarian catastrophes in Africa, which would argue in favor of intervention here.  One is that in Libya, the early uprising was so broad-based (with uprisings against Gaddafi not just in the east, but in about 80% of the northwest outside of Tripoli, plus some neighborhoods in Tripoli) that it looked more like a popular revolution against Gaddafi, rather than an ethnic/religious/tribal conflict.  (Of course, Gaddafi subsequently took back most of the west by force.)

And of course, the conflict in Libya is one in which it's actually possible to have some impact on things from the air.  If the conflict involves moving tanks across vast swaths of desert, then there's something you can do from the air.  If they were just fighting with small arms, knives, and machetes, then you wouldn't be able to do anything about it without ground troops.

[Mr. Morden]

But let's not pretend as if Gaddafi's the most horrible guy out there. Plenty of dickish mass murderers around.

Of course.  But he may be the worst mass murderer for whom an air war stands a chance of doing something about his mass murder.  I mean, there's no viable military option for dealing with North Korea for example.

[Mr. Morden]

Still, the situation was less accute, wouldn't you agree?

Well, I would say yes, of course.  Not necessarily in terms of the actual death count, but in terms of the livelihood of the 2 million people in eastern Libya who had broken free of Gaddafi's rule and were being threatened by him again.  The comparable situation in Iraq would of course be the Kurdish north, were US and UK (and initially, France) had set up a no-fly zone in 1991.

[Mr. Morden]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42824884/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I really wish people would give evidence when they make statements like this.

Stuff like that has been reported on Al Jazeera for over a month:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISLz8Fv0eik

I mean, there's the testimony of the people involved, which has been on TV for weeks.  I assume that's what Rice is talking about, and I don't see how the US would have any other particular corroborating evidence.

[Mr. Morden]

US officially recognizes the TNC in Benghazi as the government of Libya:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/16/world/africa/16libya.html?_r=1

[Mr. Morden]

If the recent reports and rebel claims are true, big things could be happening. Tripoli would now be effectively cut off from supply lines.

Many of the news stories say that Tripoli is cut off, though the map suggests that they should still be able to re-supply from Chad or Sudan via Bani Walid and the south:





I mean, the Misrata-based rebels have yet to link up with the rebels in the western mountains.  Qaddafi still has an escape route....for the moment.

[Mr. Morden]

Are you sure these maps are up-to-date ? I'm surprised to see Ras Lanuf and Ben Jawad still under Gaddafi's control.

The maps are updated every day or two.  The frontline in the east is in Brega:

http://www.stardem.com/news/world/article_5fcc8fc5-64f6-5db8-95bb-6094bb4ec8f0.html

though the rebels now control most of it.  Qaddafi has controlled Ras Lanuf and Ben Jawad for many months now.