Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces began to withdraw from the besieged western city of Misurata on Saturday, a rebel spokesman said, the first stage of a plan announced by the government to turn the fighting there over to tribal supporters.
As rebel leaders in the east claimed victory, fighters fired automatic weapons in the air and supporters blared car horns in celebration here in the provisional rebel capital. But the news of a withdrawal could not be independently confirmed, and there were still reports of heavy fighting in Misurata on Saturday.
Britain said Tuesday it is expanding its presence in Libya with military advisers and the European Union said it is prepared to send troops for humanitarian assistance if requested by the United Nations. . . .
Britain said it is sending a contingent of experienced military officers to the rebel stronghold of Bengazhi in an advisory role.
The team will work with Libya’s Transitional National Council on how the opposition can improve military organizational structures, communications and logistics, the British Foreign Office said. It will also assist in the delivery of critically needed aid.
“This deployment is fully within the terms of UNSCR 1973 both in respect of civilian protection and its provision expressly ruling out a foreign occupation force on Libyan soil,” Foreign Secretary William Hague said on Tuesday.
The British personnel will be under strict orders not take part in planning or executing military operations, Mr Hague said: “It’s not boots on the ground, it’s not fighting forces. These are not people to fight on the battlefield, these are people to advise on organisation.”
Russia said on Tuesday Western attempts to topple Muammar Gaddafi were a violation of a U.N. resolution on Libya, which only authorized the use of force to protect civilians. “The U.N. Security Council never aimed to topple the Libyan regime,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said. “All those who are currently using the U.N. resolution for that aim are violating the U.N. mandate.”
Given such a Western position, the Libyan opposition was refusing to negotiate a ceasefire with the regime in Tripoli, Lavrov said. “It is crucial to establish a ceasefire,” he said on a visit to Belgrade.
The question, of course, is why no one in the White House press corps has recently asked our Nobel Peace Prize-winning president whether he’s happy with the progress of “Operation Odyssey Dawn.” Matthew Rothschild at The Progressive is disillusioned:
From his Nobel Prize speech to his Libya speech, Obama has become the chief advocate of war, boasting of its utility and expanding its justifications.
He’s turned into a better salesman for war than his predecessor, and he’s running the empire more efficiently—and with less antagonism.
More bombs, less bombast: That’s the Obama doctrine for you.
Britain and her allies (including us) have invested tons of their prestige in this effort to oust Qaddafi and they can ill-afford to let the rebels lose. . . . The whole public purpose of this mission was to protect civilians from Qaddafi, so how do you do that when your “allies” on the ground are incompetent?
As I said yesterday, the Obama administration is faced with a choice: Either commit enough military force to topple Qaddafi, or else blame the whole disastrous mess on Hillary.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Monday he feared a “stalemate” has developed in Libya that would lead to a more radical government in that country.
McCain, the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the U.S. should revive its air attacks to incapacitate forces loyal to Moammar Gadhafi’s regime.
“All we need to do is get sufficient air power in there to really nail Gadhafi’s forces, and we can succeed,” McCain said on KFYI radio. “A stalemate is a terrible outcome, because if you have a stalemate you open the door for radical Islamists to come in and hijack this revolution.”
OK, maybe some of my more hawkish friends will have no problem with Crazy Cousin John’s dubious use of the first-person plural (“we can succeed”), but exactly how much bombing does he suppose will be necessary to allow the half-assed Libyan rebels to defeat Qaddafi?
Tuesday will be the one-month anniversary of the start of “Operation Odyssey Dawn,” and in the past four weeks the rebels have demonstrated their absolute dearth of military ability. You could assemble any random group of 2,000 JROTC cadets, issue them the same weapons possessed by the Libyan rebels and expect a better results.
I’ll defer to the good advice of Geraldo Rivera (“I swear to god, if you give these people weapons more powerful than they have right now, they will be a grave danger to themselves and others”) because at least Geraldo has seen the rebels first-hand. John McCain just sits around stateside and yells, “Bombs away!”
While I am not prepared to rule out the possibility that Qaddafi will soon be overthrown (perhaps by a military coup), it should be bloody obvious by now what’s gone wrong in Libya:
After the relatively quick and easy ouster of Mubarak in Egypt, Obama got the idea that Qaddafi could be overthrown just as easily.
The French were, for some unknown reason (perhaps related to Sarkozy’s domestic political situation), very eager to see Qaddafi overthrown, and started militating for a NATO-led intervention.
Like some other American presidents of recent memory, Obama listened to advisers who told him this foreign adventure was going to be a cakewalk — a chance to “look presidential.”
With little or no accurate intelligence about the Libyan rebels, and with a U.N. Security Council mandate for “humanitarian” intervention, Obama then approved a limited short-term U.S. military action, thinking that would be sufficient to tip the balance against Qaddafi.
Well, guess what? It was a bad idea.
Either we go to war or we don’t. You can’t halfway fight a war. Either we should have resolved to do whatever was needed to overthrow Qaddafi, or we never should have gotten involved in what is, after all, somebody else’s civil war.
And another thing: Odyssey Dawn? What the hell kind of name is that for a military operation? Sounds like a disco cover band in lime-green leisure suits playing the Holiday Inn circuit in 1975.
At this point, then, I’d say Obama’s got two choices:
Either resolve to win this thing at all costs; or
Leave it to the Europeans and blame it all on Hillary Clinton.
I’m hoping someone can help me. I left on vacation last week, and when I got back, an entire war was missing. . . . Although I’ve found hints that it still exists somewhere, President Obama’s Libyan War is officially missing in action.
Exactly. If Obama’s Excellent Libyan Adventure had led to the quick toppling of Qaddafi and the liberation of Libya, the MSM stood ready to pronounce this a stunning triumph for the Commander-in-Chief. Now that it’s beginning to look like a complete botch, they can scarcely be bothered to notice.
Meanwhile, here’s the latest video report from Misrata:
The Prime Minister insisted that there would be no “occupation” of Libya, but repeatedly refused to rule out short-lived ground-level operations by British forces. Mr Cameron’s words, in a television interview, led to renewed warnings of “mission creep” in Libya. . . .
It is understood that British Special Forces soldiers are already operating inside Libya and some military experts have suggested those troops could be asked to help train and lead rebel forces. . . .
Mr Cameron said that restriction had complicated the Western intervention. “Because we’ve said we’re not going to invade, we’re not going to occupy, this is more difficult in many ways,” he said. Asked if he was categorically ruling out putting any form of British forces on the ground in the Libya, Mr Cameron replied: “What I’ve said is there is no occupying force, no invasion. The position hasn’t changed.”
Asked whether a “temporary” ground operation was possible, he said: “I’ve answered the question. We’re not occupying, we’re not invading.”
Sir Menzies Campbell, the former Liberal Democrat leader, said Mr Cameron had opened up the possibility of British ground forces operating in Libya. “The PM’s words need careful interpretation. ‘Occupation’ necessarily implies large numbers of troops being in Libya for a substantial period of time,” he said.
So, no “occupation,” but perhaps some more British troops to help stiffen the rebels. My colleague Wombat complained this morning about the difficulty of figuring out the military situation in Libya based on news accounts, which are at times wildly contradictory. Yesterday, I highlighted the artillery attack on Ajdabiya by Qaddafi’s forces. Here is a very informative video report filed yesterday by Al-Jazeera:
As of this morning, according to Bloomberg News, it appears that the rebels repulsed the attack by Qaddafi’s forces and are currently holding on at Ajdabiya.
UPDATE: By the way, I was just discussing on Twitter the fact that Al-Jazeera’s reporting on the Libya war has been quite good — which isn’t an admission I enjoy making, but there has been a shortage of clear, intelligible reporting, and so I’m grateful for what there is.
Speaking of grudging admissions, the New York Times has covered itself in glory with C.J. Chivers’s reporting from Libya. Chivers actually made it into besieged Misrata, where one of his blog updates included this:
A quick note: we have a terrible satellite connection here, and that and the ongoing battle beside the building we are working in has made swift updates difficult. Please excuse the delays.
That earned Chivers “Excuse of the Week” honors, according to Thomas Ricks at Foreign Policy, who recommends Chivers for a Pulitzer. I second that commendation, and add this advice for NYT publisher Pinch Sulzberger: Fire Tom Friedman, Paul Krugman and David Brooks, and give Chivers a raise.
The see-saw struggle in eastern Libya has turned against the rebels once more, the U.K. Guardian reports:
Muammar Gaddafi’s forces mounted a heavy assault on Libyan rebels holding the key town of Ajdabiya on Sunday in a sign that the regime is stepping up efforts to regain territory in the east of the country.
Explosions were heard for several hours in the morning, forcing some of the few remaining families to flee to the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, 90 miles away.
Dozens of vehicles, some of them rebel trucks with heavy machine guns mounted in the back, were seen leaving Ajdabiya for Benghazi. Rebels were also seen laying anti-tank mines at the eastern gate of the city, highlighting their fears that Gaddafi’s forces could retake the town. . . .
Assisted by sandstorms, which have provided cover for air assaults, Gaddafi’s forces have increased their attacks near Ajdabiya’s western gate in recent days, mostly through long-distance shelling.
On Saturday, eight rebels were killed and 27 injured on the road leading west to the oil port of Brega, according to Dr GS Mohamed, the head surgeon at Ajdabiya’s hospital. . . .
During a lull in the fighting around midday, more than 20 rebel vehicles — pickup trucks mounted with heavy machine guns, rocket launchers and anti-aircraft guns — sped into Ajdabiya to provide reinforcements.
“Gaddafi is trying to clear the city before sending his troops in,” said Ahmed Shomi, 30, a rebel volunteer driving a battered pickup with no windscreen.
Moammar Gadhafi’s forces shelled the eastern edge of Ajdabiya Sunday, bringing the fight to the front-line rebel town that has been the scene of fierce fighting in recent weeks.
Loud booms rocked the city throughout the morning, sending a column of cars — some with rebel fighters, others with families — fleeing north through a thick sandstorm to more securely held rebel territory. . . . The government strikes highlight the rebels’ inability to hold territory along the desert road to the city’s east where weeks of fighting has seen neither side able to make significant advances.
Rebels acknowledged the setback a day after claiming they had reached the outskirts of the oil town of Brega, about 60 miles (100 kilometers) to the west. . . .
Rebel advances west of Ajdabiya — through Brega and its companion oil center of Ras Lanouf, another 60 miles (100 kilometers) farther on — have ultimately foundered as rebels overextended their supply lines and were routed by the heavier firepower and more sophisticated tactics of the government forces.
Rebel fighters fled [Ajdabiya] Sunday after a rocket and artillery attack by government forces that were reportedly on the western outskirts. Scores of rebel pickup trucks and other vehicles could be seen leaving the eastern approaches of Ajdabiya, headed toward the rebel capital of Benghazi, about 85 miles north. Explosions could be heard in the city.
Their flight seemed to bring to an end a claimed rebel push that had taken them to the outskirts of the oil refinery town of Brega, about another 40 miles further west of Ajdabiya. . . .
Strong winds and a sandstorm lowered visibility Sunday and may have made it difficult for air support to engage targets . . .
Let’s recap the past week: Last Sunday, the rebels were fighting to hold onto Ajdabiya after two days of attacks by Qaddafi’s army. NATO air strikes helped repel those attacks, and by Wednesday, it was reported that the rebels were again advancing on Brega. Now, however, Qaddafi’s forces have once more pushed back east to bring Ajdabiya under artillery fire, and sandstorms have impeded NATO air power.
Expect the fighting to begin anew Monday morning. And then we’ll see whether the “stalemate” remains stalemated.
Calls to arm Libya’s rebels and ramp up airstrikes have put the Obama administration on the defensive, after the U.S. dialed back its role in the military campaign last week.
President Barack Obama’s insistence that NATO, not the U.S., take the lead in attacking Moammar Gadhafi’s military is exposing a hard truth about an alliance that never before fought an air campaign with the U.S. in a back seat. Even against an enemy as weak as Libya, NATO needs the backbone of U.S. might to fight effectively.
It’s not a matter of NATO’s 27 non-U.S. member countries having too few combat aircraft, pilots or bombs. The problem instead is that while some, such as France and Britain, are willing to participate fully, others have limited their roles to noncombat action, and still others have decided not to participate militarily at all.
NATO’s internal debate over Libya has now broken into public view, with Britain and France publicly blaming other members for the slow pace of the bombing campaign. The Brits and French are right, but the real problem here is a military intervention with half-hearted U.S. involvement and incompatible goals. Moammar Gadhafi must be smiling at his luck. . . .
If the U.S., France and Britain can’t topple a tinhorn despot like Gadhafi who is loathed by most of his own people, the damage to Western credibility will be severe and long-lasting.
There weren’t any reports last night of major ground actions on the Brega/Ajdabiya front. It appears that Qaddafi’s forces are licking their wounds and regrouping after the weekend battle at Ajdabiya. The fighting continues in Misrata, where rebels are besieged by Qaddafi’s army. And at a meeting in Qatar of allies supporting the Libya rebels, there was talk of loaning the rebels $2 billion.
AJDABIYA, Libya — This normally bustling city was nearly deserted Tuesday as rebel fighters pressed on to the oil port of Brega, taking advantage of recent NATO airstrikes that pushed forces loyal to Moammar Gadhafi farther west. . . .
In Ajdabiya, rebels left behind a skeleton crew to watch over what were mostly shuttered businesses and deserted streets in a city of 130,000 residents. Rebel commander Awdea Misrati said the NATO airstrikes gave the rebels defending Ajdabiya some much-needed breathing room, but residents of the bullet-scarred city are being told to stay away until the situation stabilizes.
Misrati said weekend airstrikes fractured Gadhafi forces, leaving small pockets of men and weapons scattered along the desert road to Brega and within the city itself. Fighters reported sporadic gunfire within the city as rebels tracked government snipers left behind, and they fired rockets at a suspected group of government holdouts near the western gate.
The road to Brega is littered with the charred hulls of tanks and cars and where empty shell casings jingle underfoot.
The situation on the ground is dynamic, fluid and changing constantly. In the east opposition forces retook control of Ajdabiya yesterday, two days after being driven to the northern edge of the city.
Regime forces withdrew towards Brega and deployed their lead elements east of that city. Opposition forces have deployed elements southwest of Ajdabiya. So the confrontation line is once again between Brega and Ajdabiya.
So the rebels are now back where they were last Thursday, before the panic-stricken retreat. And as to the situation on the ground being “fluid” — try not to step in that, OK?
