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

[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

[Antonio the Sixth]

I can't help but think that the current strategy in Libya will only lead to a prolonged status quo and ultimately more bloodshed. If the coalition backed the opposition fully or just tried to decapitate the leadership, I think this might be over sooner. (o/c this violates international laws). Right now there are a whole lot of war crimes going on from both sides and people with little to gain being the victims.

Exactly this.

[Antonio the Sixth]

"Pacifist" demonstration a couple of days ago in Italy. Really depressing.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

I can't help but think that the current strategy in Libya will only lead to a prolonged status quo and ultimately more bloodshed. If the coalition backed the opposition fully or just tried to decapitate the leadership, I think this might be over sooner. (o/c this violates international laws). Right now there are a whole lot of war crimes going on from both sides and people with little to gain being the victims.

Not to make blind defense of rebel forces but I'm not sure how much war crimes they can actually commit, unless I missed some reports they don't persecute people in the area they control, and the only people they would be fighting would be Gaddafi soldiers, hard to make war crimes against soldiers, especially since they apparently didn't even made one prisoner.

Since the beginning I agreed that if it turns into long status quo, the coalition should debate with rebels about the possibility of ground forces. If only for one thing: Misrata. The situation seems to turn more and more really bad there, on the humanitarian and war levels. Today, Abdel Fatah Younes, military chief of rebels publicly, accused NATO (does this would target only NATO or the military action of the coalition generally speaking I don't know, it's only a side point anyhow) not to care about civilians of Misrata, and that it would become of their responsibility if it turns worse. Well, 1st I hope we do the maximum we can do there, in Abidjan French helicopters significantly destroyed heavy military equipment, and even lighter ones, such as some armed pick-ups within Abidjan, unless we can't because Misrata's streets would be less large than Abidjan's or something like that, I hope we try there too, though French forces haven't engaged an helicopters carrier there, and not sure Americans or British have engaged one. And if we can't do something from the air, I hope we propose the solution of ground forces, and if rebels refuse, then the fault would be on rebels' responsibility.

About one week ago, the maritime blockade has been lifted in Misrata to permit the entrance of a boat carrying humanitarian supply, taking some foreign refugees, and also evacuated some wounded people, seems a few more boats tried, but Libyan war ships apparently tried to mess around too. Then not sure this solution from the sea can be very efficient, especially if a long status quo is taking place in the east.

So far seems to me that the main remaining possibilities are:

- The fact that Gaddafi forces are submit to a blockade of military supply, make that, step by step, they can't fight as well as they could, then step by step, very slowly, rebels take back some ground. Very hazardous solution especially when you know that Gaddafi had made huge stocks of weapons. I saw one the video of one in Ajdabiya after rebels took it back, the amounts of rockets and missiles was just astonishing, several huge depots on hundreds of meters (very exotic mix of material by the way, American, French, Iranian, I also saw some boxes with 'DPRK', and maybe others), though with such a depot rebels would only have the ammunition, not the equipment to use them, not to speak about the knowledge.

- Status quo, rebels succeed to keep the east and with the help of the coaltion they block the progression of Gaddafi forces but don't take more ground. At best they use this time to become a more credible force, they succeed to get more weapons by one way or an other, and optimally the knowledge and the training to use them, and then, after quite a long time, once they become more efficient, they step by step take the advantage on their opponents. Could be a quite long solution too.

- Rebels figure out that they might need the help of foreign ground forces, especially when we consider cases like Misrata.

- Or, most optimal solution, people around Gaddafi really feel that's it's over for him and Libya anyhow, that they will always have the military pressure of foreign countries on them, that Libya will remain a hellhole as long as Gaddafi decides to maintain his power, and a lot of people continue to flee them, and the most important would be that the bunch of military officials around him stop to obey to him, and optimally they catch him, and all this stupid nastiness is over. The fact that guys around him already engaged in nasty stuffs didn't help, since they could fear an international court or something, but they could also negotiate a protection from people in NTC or something.

From last reports I've seen, seems they really tried to more politically and militarily organize themselves in the east, but still not efficient, today they would be losing some grounds in Brega, and according to a reporter there, some would be even considering Benghazi could be in danger again (with the coalition strikes I'd doubt it, but that would be the mindset in which they are).

Anyhow still remains a case like Misrata, and maybe other smaller cities are in the same case (I hadn't news of Zintan for a while, but at one point they would miss of supply too), not sure people could afford during a long time that the city continues to be murdered.

A France24 reporter told that journalists had recently been allowed to enter, with an official escort, into Zawiyah, big rebel stronghold west of Tripoli that has been turned down by heavy fights. She described the city was a total desert, lots of houses had been heavily touched and almost destroyed by war weapons, and that, the big mosque of the city, which had been used by rebels as a kind of hospital has just been totally...razed. Doesn't exist anymore.

I put the most of hopes into the regime falling from the top, several signs made it more and more credible in the last days. Hopefully it happens.

[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

[patrick1]

I can't help but think that the current strategy in Libya will only lead to a prolonged status quo and ultimately more bloodshed. If the coalition backed the opposition fully or just tried to decapitate the leadership, I think this might be over sooner. (o/c this violates international laws). Right now there are a whole lot of war crimes going on from both sides and people with little to gain being the victims.

Not to make blind defense of rebel forces but I'm not sure how much war crimes they can actually commit, unless I missed some reports they don't persecute people in the area they control, and the only people they would be fighting would be Gaddafi soldiers, hard to make war crimes against soldiers, especially since they apparently didn't even made one prisoner.

Ive seen the videos first hand. If you can stomach seeing people being murdered (after they surrendered), Ill send you the link(s).  There weren't any prisoners because those captured were executed and then strapped to hoods of Toyota pickups like a prize buck.

-That is not to say that Qaddafi's forces are not committing equally and even worse acts. My point is there seems to be little care on either side for rules of engagement and there are summary executions being committed. This is not rare in war and pretty much every army or insurgent force has done this to vastly varying degrees.  Rather than go on further into a whataboutery and moral equivalencies- Ill just say the rebels have plenty of people among their ranks who aren't sprouting halos anytime soon.

[bgwah]

It is interesting to note that the neocon warmongers are silent about the rebels' use of civilians as human shields in Misrata.

[opebo]

"Pacifist" demonstration a couple of days ago in Italy. Really depressing.

Really encouraging!  Perhaps if Gaddafi can hold out long enough the imperialists will get a comeuppance. 

[Middle-aged Europe]

It is interesting to note that the neocon warmongers are silent about the rebels' use of civilians as human shields in Misrata.

Not really.

It's interesting though that the only source for this claim seems to be Libyan state television.

[bgwah]

It is interesting to note that the neocon warmongers are silent about the rebels' use of civilians as human shields in Misrata.

Not really.

It's interesting though that the only source for this claim seems to be Libyan state television.

I have not watched Libyan state television. If you read or watch Western media, what we essentially are told is this: When Gadaffi's forces are in Sirte or some other city, it is because they are using the civilian population as human shields against coalition attacks from the air. A clear sign of Gadaffi's brutality! But when the rebels forces are staying in Misrata and the civilian population is suffering from a siege as a result, it is... a clear sign of Gadaffi's brutality!

[John Dibble]

It is interesting to note that the neocon warmongers are silent about the rebels' use of civilians as human shields in Misrata.

Not really.

It's interesting though that the only source for this claim seems to be Libyan state television.

I have not watched Libyan state television. If you read or watch Western media, what we essentially are told is this: When Gadaffi's forces are in Sirte or some other city, it is because they are using the civilian population as human shields against coalition attacks from the air. A clear sign of Gadaffi's brutality! But when the rebels forces are staying in Misrata and the civilian population is suffering from a siege as a result, it is... a clear sign of Gadaffi's brutality!

Are the rebels specifically moving into populated areas of the city to avoid attacks from Gadaffi's forces? And more importantly in regards to Gadaffi's brutality, would his forces actually care?

[Gustaf]

It is interesting to note that the neocon warmongers are silent about the rebels' use of civilians as human shields in Misrata.

Not really.

It's interesting though that the only source for this claim seems to be Libyan state television.

I have not watched Libyan state television. If you read or watch Western media, what we essentially are told is this: When Gadaffi's forces are in Sirte or some other city, it is because they are using the civilian population as human shields against coalition attacks from the air. A clear sign of Gadaffi's brutality! But when the rebels forces are staying in Misrata and the civilian population is suffering from a siege as a result, it is... a clear sign of Gadaffi's brutality!

The rebels kind of are the civilian population in the cities, you know. And there is a difference between indiscriminately slaughtering civilians while attacking your enemy and not being able to avoid hurting civilians because the other side is deliberately using people as human shields.

[bgwah]

It is interesting to note that the neocon warmongers are silent about the rebels' use of civilians as human shields in Misrata.

Not really.

It's interesting though that the only source for this claim seems to be Libyan state television.

I have not watched Libyan state television. If you read or watch Western media, what we essentially are told is this: When Gadaffi's forces are in Sirte or some other city, it is because they are using the civilian population as human shields against coalition attacks from the air. A clear sign of Gadaffi's brutality! But when the rebels forces are staying in Misrata and the civilian population is suffering from a siege as a result, it is... a clear sign of Gadaffi's brutality!

Are the rebels specifically moving into populated areas of the city to avoid attacks from Gadaffi's forces? And more importantly in regards to Gadaffi's brutality, would his forces actually care?

So why don't the rebel forces leave Misrata and fight out in the open?

[John Dibble]

So why don't the rebel forces leave Misrata and fight out in the open?

Because they would get slaughtered just like anyone would if they were to fight in open ground against a superior force. After that Gadaffi's forces would just roll right back in and brutally crack down on the populace in order to reassert control. Dying and letting the oppressor continue oppressing would be counterproductive to their goal of getting rid of the oppressor.

The rebels are not using the populace as human shields. In the case of Misrata many of the rebels are people who actually live there. They are trying to defend their homes, their families, and their neighbors against an aggressor. It's not their fault that Gadaffi's forces are firing mortars indiscriminately regardless of their actual positions in the city.

[bgwah]

So why don't the rebel forces leave Misrata and fight out in the open?

Because they would get slaughtered just like anyone would if they were to fight in open ground against a superior force. After that Gadaffi's forces would just roll right back in and brutally crack down on the populace in order to reassert control. Dying and letting the oppressor continue oppressing would be counterproductive to their goal of getting rid of the oppressor.

The rebels are not using the populace as human shields. In the case of Misrata many of the rebels are people who actually live there. They are trying to defend their homes, their families, and their neighbors against an aggressor. It's not their fault that Gadaffi's forces are firing mortars indiscriminately regardless of their actual positions in the city.

Precisely--the rebels would probably be crushed by Gadaffi if they fought out in the open. Just like Gadaffi's forces would be easily bombed by the coalition if they did the same. Staying inside the cities offers them protection, even if the civilian population suffers as a result. Why we must deny that both sides are doing it irks me.

[President Mitt]

It is interesting to note that the neocon warmongers are silent about the rebels' use of civilians as human shields in Misrata.

Or that the media has been silent on that the Rebels also have been doing some really disgusting things to Libyan blacks, but whatever.

[John Dibble]

So why don't the rebel forces leave Misrata and fight out in the open?

Because they would get slaughtered just like anyone would if they were to fight in open ground against a superior force. After that Gadaffi's forces would just roll right back in and brutally crack down on the populace in order to reassert control. Dying and letting the oppressor continue oppressing would be counterproductive to their goal of getting rid of the oppressor.

The rebels are not using the populace as human shields. In the case of Misrata many of the rebels are people who actually live there. They are trying to defend their homes, their families, and their neighbors against an aggressor. It's not their fault that Gadaffi's forces are firing mortars indiscriminately regardless of their actual positions in the city.

Precisely--the rebels would probably be crushed by Gadaffi if they fought out in the open. Just like Gadaffi's forces would be easily bombed by the coalition if they did the same. Staying inside the cities offers them protection, even if the civilian population suffers as a result. Why we must deny that both sides are doing it irks me.

The city itself isn't what offers Gadaffi's forces protection, it's the civilians living in it - they could be out in the open with civilian hostages and it would be the same. That's why the claim is that they are using human shields. The reason it's wrong to say the rebels are using the civilians in the same manner is because they are only using the physical structure of the city as a defense, not the civilians. It's quite obvious that they'd be poor shields against Gadaffi's forces anyways since they have made it apparent that they don't care about civilian casualties, and even if the civilians weren't there the rebels' situation wouldn't be all that different. To say that the rebels are using civilians human shields is patently absurd and you're an idiot to make that claim.

If you just want to say that the people of the city suffer because of the rebel presence then fine, but even if they weren't there they'd still be suffering under Gadaffi. Life isn't fair and sometimes people die unjustly because of that, but if nobody is willing to do anything about tyrants like Gadaffi because they are worried that innocent people will get hurt then innocent people will still get hurt or killed because tyrants like Gadaffi hurt and kill people anyways. Or do you have an alternate solution for the rebels to pursue that won't get them all killed and leave their families and neighbors at the mercy of a delusional, narcissistic madman?

[Sam Spade]

So, as Gaddafi closes back in on Adjabiya and soon Benghazi, it looks like once again China and Russia have outsmarted the West (except for Germany) and the US.  Now it's either boots on the ground, or the rebels will lose.  You can't play for stalemate, and now that you've gotten involved, you'll look incredibly weak when the rebs go down.

[GMantis]

So, as Gaddafi closes back in on Adjabiya and soon Benghazi, it looks like once again China and Russia have outsmarted the West (except for Germany) and the US.  Now it's either boots on the ground, or the rebels will lose.  You can't play for stalemate, and now that you've gotten involved, you'll look incredibly weak when the rebs go down.

No, it's not outsmarting. Russia and China didn't hinder this operation and the Coalition violated the UN mandate. That Gadhaffi is still winning means that either that the operation is carried out incompetently or that the rebels have far less support than previously thought and that they prefer the Coalition to do all their work for them. The second is more likely and it doesn't speak well of those who decided supporting the rebels was a good idea.

[Associate Justice PiT]

So, as Gaddafi closes back in on Adjabiya and soon Benghazi, it looks like once again China and Russia have outsmarted the West (except for Germany) and the US.  Now it's either boots on the ground, or the rebels will lose.  You can't play for stalemate, and now that you've gotten involved, you'll look incredibly weak when the rebs go down.

No, it's not outsmarting. Russia and China didn't hinder this operation and the Coalition violated the UN mandate. That Gadhaffi is still winning means that either that the operation is carried out incompetently or that the rebels have far less support than previously thought and that they prefer the Coalition to do all their work for them. The second is more likely and it doesn't speak well of those who decided supporting the rebels was a good idea.

     It suggests that we jumped into the conflict without understanding the local factors at work, which is pretty standard for the west in regards to Muslim nations. Look at Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, & probably a dozen other countries that I can't recall at the moment to see exactly what I mean.

[patrick1]

So, as Gaddafi closes back in on Adjabiya and soon Benghazi, it looks like once again China and Russia have outsmarted the West (except for Germany) and the US.  Now it's either boots on the ground, or the rebels will lose.  You can't play for stalemate, and now that you've gotten involved, you'll look incredibly weak when the rebs go down.

Yeah, the rebels have shown themselves a pretty poor fighting force and retreated en masse after making contact with the enemy- granted they don't have the arms to really make any head way.

I think last week or longer we were talking about the use of air power. I mentioned crappy command and control to call in air strikes as a problem.  Good example of this here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKtuegVouaI&feature=relmfu

Pretty crazy how you can clearly see the GBU in the air before impact.  RIP.

[Insula Dei]

Well, it's not as if they are actually well-trained soldiers who would be a match for Qaddafi's troops even if they would have been equally well equipped.

[Sbane]

Remind me the U.S.' vital interest there again?  Oh, wait, OIL!!!!!!!

Damn that Bush Obama for getting us into a fight over oil.

To be fair, this is more similar to the Kuwait war than the 2003 Iraq war. The whole world (or at least the west with the rest of the world just laying low) wants that oil. This means that if things go sh**tty, the US isn't the only bad guy. In a globalized world, that means a lot.

Intervening in Libya was a big mistake, but I think it's way too simplistic to just pin all the blame on Obama. Most of the impetus for this mission came from Europe, which reading the posts on this forum also makes clear. Of course Obama should have pulled a Chirac and told France and UK to go it alone. 

[Antonio the Sixth]

Intervening in Libya was a big mistake, but I think it's way too simplistic to just pin all the blame on Obama. Most of the impetus for this mission came from Europe, which reading the posts on this forum also makes clear. Of course Obama should have pulled a Chirac and told France and UK to go it alone. 

Of course, why would we bother saving all those lives if it takes so much time and make us waste so much money ?

[Gustaf]

Since Libyans don't pay federal taxes in the US, putting a value on their lives would be about as absurd as putting value on the lives of hobos.