While political arguments, recriminations, mudslinging, and other popular sports are going hot and heavy in other threads, there's been no discussion of actual news - events "at the front" instead of back home. And it's not like there's been a dearth of important news. So let's see if we can simply be informative for each other, and offer interpretations of events as if trying to really understand them was important to us.

Quagmire? Steve had suggested we would (or might) be getting into one a few days ago and I was on the verge of posting to the effect that while no clear picture of a final act was visible excellent progress was being made: the rebels were pushing forward and the "front" had reached within 100km of Sirte. My point was going to be that a rapid and successful military campaign seemed quite possible. But I held off - I wanted to watch another day or two of events so I wouldn't make a fool of myself.

Sirte, with a population of 135,000, is important for several reasons: 1) it's located darn near dead center of the coastline - visually symbolic and with a strong effect on morale; 2) whereas in both the east and west cities are strung along the coast like beads, Sirte is the only urban area in a stretch of coast two hundred miles or more long, so whereas control of a place like Al Bayda in the east (pop. >200,000) gives you control of perhaps 30 miles of main highway, holding Sirte implies control of at least three times as much; 3) it's Ghaddafi's home town and his tribe dominates it, and as events have shown they're largely loyal to him, so if the rebels could take it they'd be demonstrating more effectiveness than by taking someplace like Benghazi, which is four times as large but not as pro-Ghaddafi - I've seen a pundit say that if Sirte falls Ghaddafi is finished; 4) Gardabya Airport, just south of town, is a very large facility and has about 75 hardened hangers for military jets - I have no idea what, if anything, is in those hangers but it's worth noting two important facts: a) Ghaddafi didn't send up jets to contest the coalition and so far as I know hasn't lost many, and b) Jim Dunnigan gives Libya an air combat rating higher than Saudi Arabia's and exactly the same as that of France - we're not talking about a couple of outdated MiGs; 5) Sirte is the northern terminus of a major north-south highway - there aren't many of them.

Now for the bad news: not only were the rebels unable to break into Sirte, the loyalists have pushed the front back to the east and retaken Ras Lanuf, the next important site east of Sirte, about 125 miles away, an important oil port and site of a refinery. The town of bin Jawad, about 40km west of Ras Lanouf, seems to have been the scene of a key skirmish. Just google both names for the latest news stories. Two important aspects of this news: there seem to have been few coalition strikes on loyalist forces in this area, and nothing approaching tactical air support, and the retreat is being characterized as "headlong" and confused, a "rout" characterized by a traffic jam of hundreds of pickup trucks and private vehicles along the narrow highway east of Ras Lanouf. Rebel forces are described as being "in the hundreds", not thousands. They're short on ammo and supplies of all types, and have no or few heavy weapons.

Bad news indeed. There's talk of arming the rebels, but I wonder if even that would do much good. If the rebels doing the fighting number only in the hundreds, while Ghaddafi's army army of 45,000 owns 2,500 armored fighting vehicles, not even an RPG launcher and plenty of ammo per rebel would be enough. We can't air-drop training, leadership, CCC, or morale.

And so the question is begged, not what happens if a quagmire develops, but what happens if the rebels simply and totally dissolve? If Ghaddafi wins decisively?

Minister X wrote:And so the question is begged, not what happens if a quagmire develops, but what happens if the rebels simply and totally dissolve? If Ghaddafi wins decisively?

This is a terrible scenario. Imagine Ghaddafi as hero of the Arab/Islamic world after staring down the mighty US and her allies?

In fact, it's so disturbing, I don't know if Obama could allow it. I think he would attempt to escalate things and introduce troops. I think there are many in Congress who might see this as a situation wherein we might invade Tripoli and quickly capture Ghaddafi and thus steal his thunder.

In the short run, my guess is that it will pave the way for the President to arm the rebels--no matter who they are. I just don't know if weaponry alone will carry the day. Pick-up trucks and AK-47's can't really stand up against trained troops with heavy weapons, even if we're knocking out tanks.

Obama may come to rue the day he ruled out ground troops. It probably seemed like a no-brainer and an easy bone to keep the base from rebelling too vociferously.

For the record, I am rooting for us to succeed. Losing here would be a disaster for the US.

Yes, politically, it would be a disaster for Obama. However, domestic politics is a secondary issue to me. The President committed us to this cause and, no matter how I feel about it, I want us to "win."

That said, it's tough to know what "winning" is since we have far less guidance than we had in Iraq. There we knew "winning" meant toppling Saddam and creating a stable government (or overseeing its creation). Here? It's simply protecting civilians. That's a pretty vague objective.

Politics be damned, we need to win.
But if we end up with ground forces introduced to this war, I can see them taking out the military just as fast if not faster than they did in Iraq. But just as Iraq, the problem is not in taking down Gadaffi but what to do after that first victory. We assumed there would be peace in Iraq, many lefties correctly complain their was no exit strategy, no strategy after the invasion at all. That can be partly explained away as unforseen, we expected the Iraqi's to be happy that they were liberated, we expected peace to ensue. But there is no way we can assume this to be the case in Libya. Yeah, we can hope peace would ensue (as we hoped so in Iraq) but we know better now, to assume so is foolish.

This is rapidly devolving ...the quagmire deepens!

I'm already sorry I asked that last question. If at all possible, gentlemen, let's try to stay away from all mention of conservatives and lefties (unless they're citizens of Libya), George Bush, and even what this means to the USA or any nation outside the Mideast. When I asked "What happens if... Ghaddafi wins decisively?" I meant what happens in Libya, not DC or London or any voting booth.

It should be fairly easy to grasp this concept of objectively discussing events and facts if you were simply to imagine yourself as being the perfect foreign correspondent for a perfectly unbiased newspaper. The idea is to inform and engage in informed conjecture, not express personal opinions.

Okay? Can we try that? Might be fun.

Min X - a noble attempt, but to some people it's only worth talking about as a function of US politics. If the issue can be polarised into right v left (which I'm not sure this can, but some people are having great fun trying) then all the better.

Yawn...

We saw an interesting development today, in that the Foreign Minister flew to the UK to apparently 'defect', and there may be others deserting Gadaffi. It may be that something is happening

The military side seems to be swinging the way of Gadaffi - his forces are close to where they were when the UN was debating intervention - and I would think his forces have better supplies than the rebels do. What the rebels clearly seem to lack is organisation. Several generals defected from the government to the uprising at the start on March, but they don't appear to be doing much in the way of directing forces. However, the problem that the rebels had at the start of the week - stretched supply lines - could be a factor for the government forces.

I also wonder what has happened in each of these coastal towns after one set of forces come through. Is there any 'purging' going on? Are the rebels - as rumoured in Benghazi - targeting Gadaffi sympathisers just as we assume that the loyalists will want to root our opponents?

The outlook is grim, as far as I can see. Gadaffi looks like he could win, and that will spell disaster for many in Libya. I'm not sure that the rebels are much better (or what factions there are among them), and if they win there could be some bloodletting to come. Stalemate would also be a pretty bad outcome. Given those three possibilities, perhaps whichever is the quickest to come to pass will at least mean the war is shorter?

So, what happens if Gadaffi wins? Well, I expect that we treat him as a pariah, and that the country will be ravaged for a while. Whether that means more strident action from outside will be seen as necessary, I don't know. Maybe there are ways that the opposition can act outside military means - if people are defecting, could someone close to Muammar be planning a coup or something else?

A bloodless coup would be wonderful, but it hasn't happened yet, which is significant in and of itself. Think of the situation as having moved from Phase One to Phase Two. The first was a popular uprising, inspired by similar events across both east and west borders, comprised of all sorts of people. Once Ghaddafi started resisting and fighting back "protesters" had to evolve into "rebels", which entails a good degree of sorting. If the analogous situation in Egypt had become bloody, how many of the people who had partied in Tahrir would have taken up arms and fought? Not all, that's for sure. The onset of combat and resulting filtering of activists pushed the situation into phase two.

Under what circumstances would a coup take place in phase one vs. phase two? And would a military coup be such a wonderful thing? In phase one, which is similar to what occurred in Tunisia and Egypt, popular sentiment might have spread to the troops and made them unwilling to follow orders to fire on the protesters. Ghaddafi never considered the army all that loyal to begin with, which is why he hired mercenaries and special bodyguards. The same was true with the national police force. So why didn't either of these institutions turn against Ghaddafi when the turning was good? Yes, a few officers defected, and maybe even a few units. But as you noted, they're not now very visible. Maybe the army and police had finally, with the passage of enough time, become co-opted by "the revolution" (meaning Ghaddafi). Maybe the conventional wisdom about the lack of loyalty of the armed forces is outdated.

In phase two it's possible that a general could see his precious forces and hardware being blown to hell and back by coalition bombs, and depose Ghaddafi as the prelude to a call for a ceasefire that would preserve his toys for him. Hasn't happened yet and that army seems to be doing fairly well. Keep your fingers crossed but hoping for such a thing doesn't even approach being a "policy".

Presumably any change from Ghaddafi would be for the better. Perhaps a new dictator could become worse over time (i.e. by cooperating with al Qaeda) but it seems clear that any change would mean at least a huge pause in the crisis. Why oust Ghaddafi if you want to continue fighting the rebels? But standing down from the use of force doesn't mean handing the government over to the rebels. In fact, ousting Ghaddafi might be a good way to prevent the rebels from getting control of the country. The coalition would stop bombing; the rebels would breathe a sigh of relief and start blogging; conferences would be held; and meanwhile the new man in charge could be consolidating his position.

Can you think of a more surreal armed struggle involving any of the industrialized democracies? I don't think I can. The weirdness of this situation alone - just the utterly unprecedented nature of it, in so many ways - makes it a much more important historical event than would be suggested by just the stakes involved or the number of casualties or anything like that.

If Gadaffi wins it emboldens the entire mideast to strike out against the west. It also curtails any others from overthrowing their governments. As more and more governments collapsed, more demonstrations took place. Should gadaffi win, Syrians back off, Bahrainians back off, Yemenis back off. Should Gadaffi fall, that makes these other tin pot dictators fall as well.

The news this morning is worse: the rebel retreat barely paused, it seems, in Brega. The loyalists are now besieging Ajdabiya. It was just five days ago that the rebels took Ajdabiya; then they advanced hundreds of miles, and now are back where they were, but seemingly much weaker than before, and presumably with much lower morale and less ammo.

Ajdabiya has a population of 77,000 but right now looks like a ghost town, everybody having fled or gone to ground. It sits about eight miles inland, on the main highway. Between it and the sea are dunes; inland is mostly flat. An oil terminal sits on the coast. About three miles south of town is a military base/warehouse/arsenal/armory that was the source of weapons for the rebels (and supposedly some terrorists) earlier. It's probably back in the hands of the army now. It's something like a fort as well, with a wall and prepared firing positions for tanks or infantry. There are over 25 sand-covered bunkers that might be used to hide tanks or maybe just ammo. (I'm interpreting the sat photo myself - grain of salt advised.)

In other news, I had been wondering if the coalition had been attacking Libyan air force jets on the ground or only if/when they entered the no-fly zone. HERE is a piece of tape that purportedly shows a Belgian jet bombing a Libyan jet sitting on the ground, not moving, and with no runway in sight. That's a heck of a no-fly zone! Later in the vid is footage showing a smart bomb or missile entering one of those hardened hangers I mentioned - it goes in through the side. There's no proof this vid, from Russia Today (!) is authentic, so another grain of salt is advised. But it seems obvious that such attacks would be well beyond the bounds of the UN mandate.

x

So why didn't either of these institutions turn against Ghaddafi when the turning was good? Yes, a few officers defected, and maybe even a few units.

Timing, opportunity and self interest?
Soldiers in burned out Ghaddafi tanks are being found handcuffed to their stations .
Mercenaries from Africa probably consider themselves to be dead if they surrender to the rebels.
Some loyalists may be personally loyal, personal dedicated and owe their fortunes to Ghaddaffi .
Lots of reasons. All complicated.

One of the important factors regarding the recent rebel retreat is that for a couple of days air cover hasn't been provided due to weather. The weather will change. The topography of Libya makes air support particularly valuable.

I suspect Libya holds interest for other Arab nations, but once engaged in rebellion internal activities predominate. As for the "entire mideast emboldened to strike out"... Why? How?
If the current despots win, they have been supported by the West up till recent events. And in the case of Saudi Arabia - still. . The despots were mostly allied with the West against Al Queda type terrorists because the extremists were a threat to their regimes...
You also don't strike out against your most important customers. (for oil producing nations.)

Try looking at this from a simpler lens and one that isn't dominated by an American POV.
There are three Arabic chants that are being used in everyone of these uprisings. (According to an Arab professor on CBC radio yesterday)
- One demands "freedom"
-One demands dignity
-One demands "social justice"
Each rebellion sees the current regime as enemies of those goals. In each rebellion there is perfect knowledge that up till now the West hasn't supported their efforts to achieve these goals. And although there is resentment about this, there is also the wish that the West help them achieve their goals. But, even in Libya, they aren't asking for an invasion. They are willing to fight and die for their goals.
This has very little to do with the West, other than the fact that the aspirations of the rebellions are for the political system and freedoms of the West.

With all due respect to Dan's ennui and X's idea for this thread...I don't think you can leave political wrangling out of the Libyan equation. Politics is what keeps NATO in or out of this thing. And NATO's level of involvement changes the tactical situation entirely. A T-72 is an amusing target box in the beeping repeater of a British Tornado...to a Benghazi Warfalla tribesman with a breechloader it's the frikkin' Fist of God.

Despite the rebels' recent setbacks it looks like Ghaddafy can't load up enough of a rock in his fist to smash them without NATO noticing and bombing tanks, fuel trucks, roads...whatever. On the other side, the rebels lack the manpower and hardware to put paid to Moammar...even with air support. So...impasse. A town taken here. A town lost there. A unit will get flanked and pull back. Another will push too far in front of its resupply and get hurt.

So we're looking at a protracted push-pull here and that means you have to look for advantages on other fronts. You'd better believe that the phones are working overtime between the parties with interests in the region. "Those Benghazi swine promised you that refinery? I'll blow it up before I let that happen. But here's what I'll do, I'll make sure your country gets a special rate on oil for 6 months if you butt out...plus a little something for you and the wife." And at the same time the Warfalla are calling in every marker they can and selling their notional future country for pennies on the dollar in return for considerations today.

And opposition politicians in all the NATO countries would be imbeciles not to take advantage if the "Short Victorious War" their opponents promised turns into anything but.

I think the international and domestic political back and forth will be equally as gripping as the fighting on the ground.

PCHiway wrote:
I think the international and domestic political back and forth will be equally as gripping as the fighting on the ground.

I agree with all of this. In addition to Libyan to Libyan politics and Westerner to Westerner politics, there are also Westerner to Libyan politics. What are the rebels offering to Ms. Clinton, and vice-a-versa? What is Ms. Clinton offering to what I hope are soon to be former Gaddafi loyal Libyan generals?

Ignoring Min X's plea, I was the first advocate of intervention, and stand by that recommendation. It's good for us to start having contacts with many Libyans and I'm glad we are in the tent.

If this is true, I think we are heading for a debacle:

During “In the Arena,” Jon Lee Anderson, staff writer for The New Yorker reporting from Benghazi, Libya, tells Eliot Spitzer that the number of opposition fighters on the front lines are fewer than anyone would think and that they are poorly armed and badly trained. Anderson says, “Effective number of fighting men, well under 1,000. Actual soldiers, who are now in the fight, possibly in the very low hundreds on the opposition side.”

At best, what we have is an under-trained guerrilla force trying to use traditional military methods with pick-up trucks substituting for AFV's. If we decide to arm the rebels, they will need training. That means trainers, who will also "advise" on how to employ the weaponry.

Militarily, this looks like a loser. To avoid NATO airstrikes, the loyalists need only avoid using traditional military vehicles. Their superior training and weaponry will carry the day.

Sad to say, but I think this looks quite bad--unless troops are introduced.

How could the rebels possibly take Tripoli?

Minister X wrote:A bloodless coup would be wonderful, but it hasn't happened yet, which is significant in and of itself.

Who said anything about a bloodless coup? I mentioned a coup, but the one I was imagining was not likely to be without shedding blood.

Presumably any change from Ghaddafi would be for the better. Perhaps a new dictator could become worse over time (i.e. by cooperating with al Qaeda) but it seems clear that any change would mean at least a huge pause in the crisis.

Really?

Why oust Ghaddafi if you want to continue fighting the rebels? But standing down from the use of force doesn't mean handing the government over to the rebels. In fact, ousting Ghaddafi might be a good way to prevent the rebels from getting control of the country. The coalition would stop bombing; the rebels would breathe a sigh of relief and start blogging; conferences would be held; and meanwhile the new man in charge could be consolidating his position.

Indeed. That's what the motivation was for the coup-leaders in my imagination.

Can you think of a more surreal armed struggle involving any of the industrialized democracies? I don't think I can. The weirdness of this situation alone - just the utterly unprecedented nature of it, in so many ways - makes it a much more important historical event than would be suggested by just the stakes involved or the number of casualties or anything like that.

You don't think Afghanistan is slightly surreal? Or the chaos of post-Yugoslavia over the 1990s?

PCH - I understand what Min X was trying to achieve with this thread. It is possible to avoid talking about the effect on the USA (or the politics of other western nations) if you really really try. Just once, can we do it? Seems not. It's beyond ennui, by the way.

Tom - I'm not convinced by both of your hypotheses. Firstly, Gadaffi is not striking at 'the West', but at his own people. The West have intervened againt him, but in limited ways (thus far), but several Arab countries called for intervention and have been involved. The uprisings across the Middle East have a variety of motivations - some are aimed at pro-western governments. So, secondly, I can't see the Yemeni rebels or the Bahraini ones backing down and also being more anti-Western.

The picture is way more complicated because these countries, and the uprisings they are seeing, are not homogeneous.

Steve - if it's simply a military match-up, the rebels can't win. But it may not just be decided through military means. If the regime collapses around Gadaffi, cutting off command and control, if there are popular uprisings that reprise in Tripoli, the rebels may not need to take it.

As for the "entire mideast emboldened to strike out"... Why? How?

really?
are we to take this comment seriously?

I don't think anyone anywhere could not point to a time line of events. Tunisia falls, that emboldens Egyptians, Egypt falls and it emboldens Libyans and those in Bahrain and Yemen, Libyan rebels get support from NATO and Syrians start to act up.
It's pretty obvious and down right factual, the entire mideast has become emboldened, no doubt about it. Or do you have some other reason nobody else in the world agrees with?