Libyan rebels have conceded ground since bombing began

[dipsydoodle]

Source: The Independent

Fresh diplomatic efforts are under way to try to end Libya's bloody civil war, with the UN special envoy flying to Tripoli to hold talks after Britain followed France in accepting that Muammar Gaddafi cannot be bombed into exile.

The change of stance by the two most active countries in the international coalition is an acceptance of realities on the ground. Despite more than four months of sustained air strikes by Nato, the rebels have failed to secure any military advantage. Colonel Gaddafi has survived what observers perceive as attempts to eliminate him and, despite the defection of a number of senior commanders, there is no sign that he will be dethroned in a palace coup.

The regime controls around 20 per cent more territory than it did in the immediate aftermath of the uprising on 17 February.

The main obstacle to a ceasefire, so far, has been the insistence of the opposition and their Western backers that Colonel Gaddafi and his family must leave Libya. But earlier this month Mustafa Abdul Jalil, the leader of the Transitional National Council, stated that the dictator can remain in the country if he gives up the reins of power.

Read more: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/libyan-rebels-have-conceded-ground-since-bombing-began-2326524.html

[PurityOfEssence]

1. If, under the enormous weight of our intervention, the rebellion is not succeeding, is it valid?

We've been fed such incredible bullshit about this "rebellion". Above all else, the concept that the people "want" it and vastly outnumber the evil dictator's henchmen simply doesn't hold water. Under the protection of the massive firepower of the western allies, the "rebels" still can't get it together after over FOUR MONTHS.

We've been fed the ludicrous propaganda of comparison with the French intervening in our Revolution, when they never lifted a finger until well after two years of effective fighting, capped by a serious strategic victory at Saratoga. This little flimsy attempt to justify the overthrow of a leader who was impeding the profitable exploitation of his people's resources just reeks. It reeks of racism with the unfounded cries of "African Mercenaries", it reeks with the unfounded claims of mass rape, and it is thoroughly illegal.

The UN Resolution doesn't give our President the right to attack: by US law, he needs Congressional Authorization by both houses to allow him to answer an Article 42 call-up. By the War Powers Resolution, he may only send armed forces into hostilities or where they're imminent if there's a Declaration of War by Congress, an Authorization by Congress or if we're attacked. NATO is a strictly defensive Treaty: member nations may only send armed forces in response to a member nation being attacked.

It's not working. The very premise was that "the people" had consensus and legitimacy. They can't get it together even with massive support. Where's the justification?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

14. Even if it succeeds, I'd question the validity ...

or at least the viability.

The rebels have done very little on their own, making advances behind a curtain of NATO air attacks. If the rebels win, NATO will need to stay involved to enforce some kind of peace as the rebels fragment into factions, and the outside bad actors pour in to seize power.

We will repeat our success in building viable regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

:hi:

[joshcryer]

15. UN peacekeeping forces are expected, that's what the NATO chief wants.

Fortunately the TNC has already put the police back to work (80% of them in Benghazi) and plans to put the security forces back to work, including the military.

I have decent expectations, but we'll see how it goes.

[boppers]

28. We've also been fed incredible bullshit about our "intervention".

People have been claiming that NATO, or even the US, went to war.

In reality, a trained, equipped, army is up against untrained civilians with small arms, and our job is to somehow make that into a fair fight? Only using airpower?

[JackRiddler]

2. Now the next Republican president has a country to invade for another trillion dollar deficit.

[JackRiddler]

3. How can this be? The CNNs talk about potential gains for the rebels every night.

Should have been a tip-off that it was always conditional - the rebels COULD take this very key town under cover of the NATO sorties, and IF they do, Gaddafi's surely cooked, etc. etc.

[No Elephants]

9. "Potential" is almost as big a word as "if." Potentially, I could be POTUS.

In theory, anyway. Realtity, however, is something else.

[Igel]

18. That's how it is during presidential campaigns.

Day 1: "Candidate X's poll numbers have increased 8% and stand at 53% of voters."

Day 20: "Candidate X's poll numbers have increased 6%."

Day 45: "Candidate X's poll numbers have increased 9%."

Day: 63: "Candidate X's poll numbers have increased 5%."

Day 75: "Candidate X's poll numbers have increased 10%."

Day 91: "Candidate X's poll numbers have increased 7%."

Day 103: "Candidate X's poll numbers have increased 11%."

Day 123: "Candidate X's poll numbers have increased 8%."

And you stop and think, "Wait. That means Candidate X's poll #s stand at 109%."

Meanwhile, you hear the opposite litany for the candidate that your media source doesn't like, and you think that if h's support increased by 43% he'd finally be back to having zero supporters. It's silly, but it seems to make the reporters happy.

[daleo]

4. Either the rich of the western world pay higher taxes

Or the west can't prosecute multiple wars in quasi-colonial adventures. That's what it is beginning to look like to me.

[Psephos]

6. Regardless of how option #1 works out, option #2 is fast becoming a fait accompli. :) n/t

[joshcryer]

5. So wait a second. The rebels "controlled territory" immediately after the uprising?

Could someone explain how a mostly unarmed population with a few military defectors "controlled territory" immediately after the uprising? Because that's quite interesting to me.

The western mountains were under Gaddafi's control and it took months to get rid of Gaddafi's people.

Adjabiya, Brega in the east were under Gaddafi's control.

Misrata and the western mountains were under Gaddafi's control.

Until the OP can cite their "controlled" territory numbers I'm going to be skeptical of this report.

[Igel]

17. Because you have to understand the definition of "control."

Just after the rebellion, Qaddhafi's troops were off balance. They ceased functioning in large swathes of the country because of defections. They needed to consolidate and so they pulled back.

Where there was no Qaddhafi, the assumption is that there was rebel control. There was no other, and without the rebellion having disrupted Qaddhafi's control there'd have been control by Mu'ammar.

Ajdabiya and Misurata were rebel held, simply because there was nobody else. Parts of the west was also a kind of no man's land. Not Qaddhafi's, whose was it?

You might disagree with this very nicely all-white/all-black view of things, but that seems to be the way they're looking at it. The key is to not equate "rebel" with "TNC." The TNC was organized later, some sort of centralized rebel-based authority took control of some territory and lost control of other territory. Before the TNC was organized, there was still rebel control, even if it was lax or invisible. If there's a rebellion and the old order's overthrown and no government's established, it's the mobs on the ground that are in charge, even if "in charge" means pulling in 20 directions.

[joshcryer]

23. That's still silly beyond measure. Armed population vs. unarmed population who is in control?

We can make it black and white if people want, it's silly to think an unarmed untrained population in in control of anything.

[xchrom]

7. Recommend

[The Doctor.]

8. Many DUers would just say "fuck em" at this point.

After all, this is somehow no different than Iraq or Afghanistan. :shrug:

The rest of us care about people who are seeking democracy in the world.

[No Elephants]

10. And the impact in the real world of what most DUers would say is...?

Hell, what most voters do say doesn't even seem to matter, let alone what most DUers would say.

[joshcryer]

12. Almost zero, thankfully.

There is a psyops aspect to it though and a demoralizing aspect to it, but that can be easily cleansed by simply shutting down the browser.

[No Elephants]

20. If only the real world could be cleansed that easily.

At first, I didn't get at all why some DUers seemed more preoccupied with what other DUers had posted or even MIGHT post than they were with what was actually happening in real life. Now, I still don't get it at all, except for the times that I totally get it..

;-)

[joshcryer]

27. Well, character assessment is part and partial to real life.

To know that one is surrounded by totalitarian counter-revolutionaries, for example, is educational.

[al bupp]

32. Not this DUer, sir

Libya is quite different from either Iraq or Afghanistan. The people there trying to topple a dictator of 42 years practically begged NATO for air, logistical and diplomatic support.

[No Elephants]

11. Another rousing success. Practice improves performance.

Seems as though we did get that "getting yourself into wars" thing down pat. Now, all we have to work on is that pesky futility bit.

[joshcryer]

13. FYI, 1 week in Afghanistan costs more than the entire war in Libya so far for almost 6 months.

[PurityOfEssence]

16. A veritable bargain basement blitzkrieg

Meanwhile people die, lose economic standing, see relatives maimed or killed and we wander on with our on-the-cheap imperialism.

This is such an addle-headed and pathetic display. War is horrible; if it's to be waged, it should be waged seriously and with every intent to make it QUICK.

The sheer arrogance on every level of our intervention is galling; we're treating that country like a lab animal.

Days, not weeks...

[joshcryer]

24. Operation Odyssey Dawn was days not weeks.

:hi:

[PurityOfEssence]

31. You know full well that we've had manned bombing missions as recently as June 18th

I've posted this in threads where you've kept posting, although not replying to me.

The beard of NATO is a crock of shit.

Also, the statement "a matter of days, not weeks" was made in quite a few situations, and in at least one of the, it was made in regards to the whole operation, not just the specific opening attacks.

[No Elephants]

19. Thanks, but why is that relevant to my post? I said nothing about money.

[JackRiddler]

22. Come on, you're getting a war for practically free! Who can resist such a deal.

Long as it's cheap, I say bombs away!

[joshcryer]

26. It's more that the freedom fighters are putting up the fight, not us.

Bombing equipment and leveling the playing ground is a lot different than invading with boots on the ground.

[JackRiddler]

21. Well, that's spectacular. So we've got room for another 24 such campaigns.

Why don't you give us your liberation bombing list? Zimbabwe? Not Colombia, of course, but surely that evil Chavez in Venezuela? Cuba? Syria? They've got a rebellion and unlike Gaddafi's the Assad crackdown doesn't require exaggeration, it really is that bad. How about those Saudis? Shall we stop taking orders on whom to bomb from them, and turn the drones on them? Iran and North Korea, obviously. Yowza, that still leaves room for another 15 or more. Who else can we bomb for freedom today?

[joshcryer]

25. Libya was an exception, not a rule, the other big countries wouldn't authorize anything elsewhere.

I was shocked that they authorized it in Libya.

Iran, nope, no authorization.

Syria, mass killings, no authorization.

North Korea could kill a thousand people a day and you wouldn't get an authorization.

Burma had 50k people killed, no authorization.

Yes I support people who are being oppressed by tyranny.

I bet you'd cheer it if Chavez dies and the Venezuelan Chavestia generals stage a military junta. :hi:

[JackRiddler]

29. Damn those other countries for preventing the US from starting World War III.

As I suspected, you have a very long ideal list of wars for the US to start or enter.

[joshcryer]

30. Nope. That's a list of UN requested actions to stop tyrants from killing. The US respects the UN...

...and other countries when they want to kill their own people.