Quote:
Libya: rebel defences 'failing' as Gaddafi forces move towards Benghazi
Soldiers loyal to Muammar Gaddafi reach heart of strategic town of Ajdabiya, 90 miles from city at centre of revolution
Muammar Gaddafi's forces continued to fight their way toward Benghazi, the heart of Libya's revolution, as five African leaders arrived in Tripoli in an effort to broker a ceasefire and political settlement.
Rebel defences around Ajdabiya appeared to be failing as Gaddafi's soldiers broke in to the heart of the strategic town, 90 miles from Benghazi, and engaged in running street battles after again outmanoeuvring the revolutionaries.
Although western powers continued their air strikes, they did not appear to deter Gaddafi's forces.
Rebels said government forces shot down a Russian-made helicopter sent to the fight by revolutionaries only two days before. Nato forced a rebel MIG jet to land because of the UN-imposed no-fly zone.
Shelling around the southern entrance to Ajdabiya continued, with loud explosions heard and thick black smoke rising over parts of the town.
Much of Ajdabiya was deserted after civilians fled amid the prospect of Gaddafi's troops taking it for a second time in as many weeks.
Thousands of discarded bullet casings littering some streets marked sites of intense shooting over the weekend.
"Gaddafi's military is in the town," said Saleh Mufta, a 25-year-old who was a science student before becoming an armed rebel.
"There's been a lot of shooting. Gaddafi has copied our techniques. He is not using so many tanks now after the air strikes. His men are in pickups. They move very fast. We don't know where they are. They just pop up."
Burned out cars were scattered through the city, and a mosque on the edge of town appeared to have been the scene of heavy fighting. Bullets scarred much of the building.
Asked what he thought the government army's intent was, Mufta said: "They don't want Ajdabiya. They want the road to Benghazi. They want Benghazi."
Nato faces humiliation if Gaddafi's army is able to force its way through Ajdabiya again to threaten Benghazi, the city the western allies launched the first air strikes to defend.
Other than a line of artillery about 15 miles from the city, rebel defences around Benghazi are little in evidence.
The fighting continued as an African Union delegation, led by the South African president, Jacob Zuma, was to meet Gaddafi in Tripoli and then fly on to talk to the rebels in Benghazi to press for a ceasefire.
Zuma has accused western powers of going against the "letter and spirit" of the UN security council resolution with the extent of air strikes and has called for Gaddafi to be allowed to leave power "with dignity".
The other members of the team include the presidents of Congo-Brazzaville, Mali, Uganda and Mauritania.
Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz, president of Mauritania, said: "We hope that mediation will lead to a constructive dialogue for a political settlement of the crisis based on the aspirations of the Libyan people."
But Libya's rebel leadership is sceptical about any political deal that does not require the immediate removal of Gaddafi from power or any ceasefire that does not require him to pull all his forces out of cities under attack, most importantly Misrata.
|
Libya: rebel defences 'failing' as Gaddafi forces move towards Benghazi | World news | The Guardian
this is a problem, yes? can nato allow itself to effectively be defeated? will it?
oops, sorry about that guys.
this was not given in advance.
and the problems here are not a matter of marketing. i don't imagine anyone cares what political advantage american conservatives try to gain from this by setting up ridiculous criteria or making surreal frames to place over by all the blather about leadership yada yada yada.
let's do a quick recap:
there was a revolt centered in eastern libya.
the metropolis has never really liked gadhafi so saw this as a way to support his ouster, and as a way to continue trying to get out in front of the revolts against the national security state/neo-liberal imperial order that's still unfolding across north africa/middle east. get out in front so as to contain/channel.
it's not a real contradiction discursively for the us to do this as it simply requires aligning its policy a bit closer with the sort of values/words that american politicians like to say the united states is about anyway--freedom and all that---but particularly since the 1980s (leaning on the cold war) neo-conservative "realism" has resulted in the continued american sponsorship of dictatorships which played nice with us interests in the region. those interests are really important, so getting in front of the revolt is a strategic imperative. neo-con "realism" would be entirely incapable of it. not clear and manly enough, you see.
once the situation in libya escalated into military action, things moved very quickly in a downhill sense. the united states dithered for a while about supporting the security council action requested by the rebels and uk and france---they finally supported the resolution on a friday---by sunday the bombing had started. and things went the other way for a short time while the americans ran the show and used their technologies.
the story since then is obvious---a period of retreat for gadhafi followed by reversal followed by retreat followed by the above, which coincides with (a) the nature of the air strikes (b) the role of us equipment in the air strikes and---here's a key change it appears (c) gadhafi's adaptation to the fact of the strikes.
one problem is that resolution isn't terribly precise about what the objective of the action is...humanitarian or overthrowing gadhafi. i think that so long as things appeared to be heading toward a military defeat for gadhafi, the humanitarian and military/political objectives could be conflated.
but now, if the dynamic above continues, it is possible that the objectives could change fundamentally and that nato begins to act to extricate itself from a potential defeat---so acts in its own interests as an independent military unit involved in a civil war in libya.
so escalation or defeat.
i don't see anything good coming of either one. and i don't see any immediate alternative scenario---unless there is a political resolution of the conflict. but that aside, i think this action may be nearing a tipping point.
i think there's been a significant underestimation of what nato was getting itself into and---what seems to be worse----a slowness to react that seems to be what is giving gadhafi the space to deliver what could well be a fatal blow to the rebels if he can take banghazi.
right now, it appears that things are moving too fast for the style that nato....