Divisions Among Libyan Rebels & Their Allies On Way Forward

By Steve Hynd

One of the big questions about the Libyan intervention has always been "who are the rebels - and how competent are they?" A piece from McClatchy today is illuminating. It's about Khalifa Hifter, the former regime colonel who defected over two decades ago and had been living in Virginia ever since, under US (read "CIA") protection until he decided to return to Lybia recently - thinking, he says, that he'd be America's new Chalabi man on the ground.

There's this:

In one of his first interviews since he returned to Libya, Hifter said that he'd been appointed the rebels' field commander this week. The hourlong interview he gave to two reporters Monday was arranged by the official rebel military spokesman and conducted in an office in the rebels' military headquarters. An organizational chart Hifter displayed showed him as equal to Gen. Abdelfatah Younis, a former Gadhafi interior minister who also lays claim to rebel command.

But his authority remains unclear. Fathi Baja, a member of the Transitional National Council, the rebel governing body, confirmed Tuesday that Hifter had been named field commander, but said that he reported to Younis. A council spokesman, Mustafa Gheriani, denied Hifter's claims to leadership and referred to him as a civilian. At a news conference last week, Younis denied that Hifter had a leadership role.

And this:

Speaking almost exclusively in Arabic, Hifter said that with more advanced weapons the rebels would be "capable of ending the battle." He pledged to shape up the slapdash force composed largely of middle-aged soldiers and untrained volunteers who tend to flee from gunfire. He vowed that "real operations" against Gadhafi would start next week.

As for Younis, a military school classmate, Hifter was dismissive. "He has no effect on what I do in the field, so I don't pay much attention to him," he said.

He laughed when he was asked about the rebel's lack of discipline, which sends them flying in retreat at the mere sound of explosions.

"The last period was not my responsibility," Hifter said. "I was selected to be the field commander this week. There's a lot of things that are going to change."

Hifter also alleges that before he retruned to Libya he had meetings with US officials in whch he was promised all kinds of modern weapons that haven't materialized.

If Hifter strikes you as none too stable and the mixed signals over his position with the rebels make you seriously question whether any of the rebel leadership could find their asses with both hands and a map...well, you're not the only one.

Meanwhile, at a summit in Doha (yes, that's in Qatar, which sent troops to help put down Bahrain's iteration of the Arab Spring - irony abounds) the leaders of NATO and the coalition have met to agree - at French and British insistence - that regime change is what it's all about in Libya, UNSC resolutions be damned. What they can't agree is how to do that.

While there was agreement on the principle of removing Gaddafi, there were divisions over how to make that happen.

Disagreements surfaced on British and French calls for greater participation in the NATO air campaign against Gaddafi's heavy weapons and on arming the rebels.

British Foreign Secretary William Hague called for more alliance members to join attacks on ground targets and his French counterpart, Alain Juppe, called for heavier military pressure on Gaddafi's troops to convince him to leave power.

...Hague told Reuters that other coalition aircraft must join ground attacks.

"There are many other nations around Europe and indeed Arab nations who are part of this coalition. There is scope for some of them to move some of their aircraft from air defense into ground-strike capability," he said.

French Defense Minister Gerard Longuet told parliament in Paris on Tuesday that without U.S. ground attack aircraft joining in the strikes, NATO would not be able to loosen Gaddafi's noose around towns like Misrata and Zintan.

...Other NATO countries are either keeping their distance from the campaign or enforcing a no-fly zone.

A gap appeared at the meeting between NATO hawks and doves.

Belgian Foreign Minister Steven Vanackere said the March 17 U.N. resolution authorizing NATO action in Libya -- to protect civilians from Gaddafi's government forces -- ruled out arming civilians and he saw no need to boost air power there.

In another disagreement, German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle expressed reservations about an Italian call to create a fund from frozen assets to aid the rebels. "The question is, is it legal? The answer is we don't know," he said.

Again, a phrase involving the words "ass" and "both hands" springs to mind. The two nations most gung-ho about regime change in Libya are admitting that they can't make that happen on their own and are calling for the US to come pull their chestnuts out of the fire. Others, understandably, think the leaders of France and Britain are full of it and want nothing to do with getting more deeply involved in the quagmire.

But if you believed President Obama that the US had now taken a "hands off" approach in Libya, flying only support missions...well, think again.

@BreakingNews: American warplanes that have remained part of NATO mission since U.S. handoff struck 3 Libyan anti-aircraft sites overnight, U.S. tells NBC

Hmm..."ass", "hands", "even with a map".