By Steve Hynd
As many expected, Libyan rebel forces have not proven strong enough to continue their advance under cover of an international no-fly zone into the Gaddafi-loyalist held town of Sirte - even with help from coalition airstrikes that now includes US A-10 Thunderbolts, possibly the most deadly ground-attack aircraft of all time.
the rebel pick-up truck cavalcade was first ambushed, then outflanked by Gaddafi's troops. The advance stopped and government forces retook the small town of Nawfaliyah, 120 km (75 miles) east of Sirte.
"The Gaddafi guys hit us with Grads (rockets) and they came round our flanks," Ashraf Mohammed, a 28-year-old rebel wearing a bandolier of bullets, told a Reuters reporter at the front.
...Later, a hail of machinegun and rocket fire hit rebel positions. As the onslaught began, rebels leapt behind sand dunes to fire back but gave up after a few minutes, jumped into their pick-up trucks and sped off back down the road to the town of Bin Jawad. Shells landed near the road as they retreated.
Without air strikes it appears the rebels are not able to make advances or even hold ground. The battle around Sirte, Gaddafi's birthplace, will reveal if the rebel advance has reached its limit.
Reports that some Nawfaliyah residents had fought alongside government troops are an ominous sign for world powers hoping for a swift end to Gaddafi's 41-year rule.
I know President Obama gives some pretty speeches but there is a reality on the ground and it bears little resemblance to Obama's rhetoric so far. That is why in yesterday's speech he had to back off from his previous calls for regime change. As the AP's analysis notes:
he acknowledged that the U.N. mandate doesn't extend to Gadhafi's ouster, even if many of the nations carrying it out might wish for that. Obama was frank about the reasons why.
"Broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake," Obama said.
It would shatter the international partnership he relies on for diplomatic cover and security backup. It would probably mean sending U.S. ground forces into yet another Muslim nation, something Obama has said he will not do in Libya. It would undoubtedly increase the risk to the U.S. military, the costs of the war and U.S. responsibility for shoring up and protecting whatever Libya might emerge, Obama said.
Obama said that "To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq," referring to Iraq but to be even more blunt his administration's intent was to use airstrikes to let the rebels affect regime change anyway - even if rebel attacks killed pro-Gaddafi civilians. D.P. Trombly of "Slouching Towards Columbia", in a truly excellent unpacking of Obama's Libya speech, writes:
So basically, the war is all over, except for the fighting. Contrary to the Obama administration�s claim that the US was only interested in protecting civilians, Western action has treated any attacks on Gaddafi�s military forces as legitimate humanitarian targets. To claim that US actions are only the minimum necessary to protect civilians is completely misleading. If that was all the US cared for, it would be seeking to impose a cease-fire, and willing to leave some degree of Libyan military forces intact, or it might reserve its attacks to only military elements directly involved in harming civilians. It might seek to create safe zones and exclude Libyan forces only from there. Instead, any Libyan military formation is fair game. If your goal is to destroy the enemy military in the field and prevent them from capturing territory, you are not fighting a limited humanitarian action. When you declare any areas an armed force takes from another armed force a safe zone, you are not fighting a limited humanitarian action. You are intervening in a civil war with the intent of producing a military victory.
At least, that was the plan until it became clear that NATO would be limiting the rules of engagement when it takes over command of coalition forces. The statement from the Libya Conference in London doesn't mention it but as Damon Wilson reported on Friday:
In Brussels, the French have sought assurances that a unified NATO command for both air missions would not restrict commanders� freedom of action to bomb Gadaffi�s military assets to implement the civilian protection mission. The Turks have insisted on a unified air operation due to their concerns that NATO would be held accountable for civilian causalities resulting from (non-NATO) French, British, or U.S. air and missile strikes.
This gap is bridgeable. NATO�s pending decision refers to �fully implementing UNSC resolution 1973� meaning there are no caveats on how Alliance forces can protect civilians.
And that means no more bombing just to let rebel militias attack pro-Gaddafi civilian centers.
Which in turn means a long civil war in Libya, as the Western alliance will stop Gaddafi from practising counter-insurgency Sri-Lankan style but will no longer be able to act as the Libyan Rebel Airforce when it comes to rebel ground assaults on population centers i.e. towns full of Gaddafi-loyalist civilians. The whole thing is looking like it will bog down into a de facto partition of Libya into rebel East and loyalist West - with US and other Western aircraft flying missions in Libyan airspace for at least months, if not years, time to come.
"with US and other Western aircraft flying missions in Libyan airspace for at least months, if not years, time to come."
ReplyDeleteIsn't that the real intent? Creating dependency one destroyed Middle East Country at a time.
Frankly, I think the moral argument is dubious as well. Rebels armed with AK-47s and rocket launchers aren't civilians. They're irregulars and supporting them against the government that's been recognized by most Western nations as legitimate isn't defending civilians, it's fecklessly taking sides in a civil war.
ReplyDeleteThat we're carrying the water for the Italians and French who've been carrying on a robust trade with Libya for decades makes it even more bitter. We're supporting their neocolonialism.