The Libyan civil war continued over the weekend with the usual stalemate. Gadhafi’s forces bombarded Ajdabiya on the eastern front, and both residents and rebel fighters alike fled the town. Meanwhile, Misurata, the last rebel stronghold in the west, has been under bombardment for weeks, and the civilian casualties from rocket attacks are rising. Hundreds if not thousands of families are trying to leave on humanitarian evacuations from the port every day. Just today, Gadhafi struck a deal with the UN to allow humanitarian supplies into Misurata. This would provide access to food and medicine, and safe passage for refugees. But it’s unclear if such a scheme will hold.
The situation in Misurata is bleak: hospital officials confirm 17 dead yesterday. As that continues, regardless of the UN effort you will hear the cries from residents of the need for more airstrikes or even ground troops. After all, the logic is exactly the same: the UN needed to prevent a massacre in Benghazi. Why not Misurata, the third-largest city in Libya, as well?
Mohamed, a rebel spokesman who asked for his full name to be withheld, told the Observer via Skype that “the killing and destruction and human suffering” was relentless. “The massacre that was prevented in Benghazi is now happening in Misrata. There is nowhere safe in the city.” [...]
Nato itself is in a quandary about how to break the military deadlock in Libya. UN resolution 1973 specifically rules out a “foreign occupation force”. Amid mounting calls for a Nato ground presence in Libya, politicians, lawyers and military chiefs are poring over the resolution’s semantics to establish whether such a step – with its enormous political and military risks and implications – could be taken.
Mohamed said the rebel opposition in Misrata had appealed to Nato to send ground troops to relieve the city. They were, he said, grateful for the international coalition’s military intervention. “But we’re surprised. And we’re angry. We are angered by the lack of hits on Gaddafi’s troops by Nato forces.
“This reluctance and hesitation is allowing him to suffocate the city. It’s unbearable. It’s getting to the point where it’s troops on the ground – or it’s over. We are so grateful and relieved by the international community’s efforts, it’s just that they didn’t go the extra steps, and that has played into the tyrant’s hands.”
With the coalition leaders in Britain, France and the United States saying that the NATO mission won’t end until Gadhafi exits, I see ground troops as unavoidable at this point to fulfill that mission. It’s just not going to be possible to pound Gadhafi into submission from the air. His forces are nimble, and he has the money he needs to keep this going for a long time. British Prime Minister David Cameron reiterated yesterday that his country would not send ground forces, echoing what Barack Obama has said about the US. If it’s the difference between preventing a massacre in Misurata or not, I don’t see how they resist, or at least how they keep up the self-righteous notion of a humanitarian “responsibility to protect.”



14 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Oh well. This is a wake up call to a lot of us as to how powerless people are against their own governments.
In my opinion the best strategy is as follows:
End the NATO operation & let Gaddafi silence the rebellion.
The problem is that the left will then criticize the West for standing by while Gaddafi massacres his people. Catch-22.
There is no responsibility here, whatsoever, and there should not be going forward.
We need to recognize there is no happy ending in this.
One would think that the recent bad experiences of foreign ground troops in places like Iraq and Afghanistan might have penetrated some minds, and apparently in US and UK that has been the case. I suspect France has gotten the message also.
If the Libyans can’t do what the Egyptians did then that’s that. It’s not really our affair, despite the U.S. interest in the largest oil reserves in Africa.
Perhaps now with this new failure, coupled with Afghanistan, NATO will stick to its charter and stay in Europe like a good North Atlantic coalition should.
We’re gonna be in Libya a very long time.
Way to go, Obomber. Keep spending over there, while you’re cutting over here.
Chris Floyd nails it; The Three Amigos (Obama, Sarkozy, and Cameron.)
http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/2118-three-amigos-barack-and-buddies-pledge-the-west-to-open-ended-war-of-aggression.html
If we put ground troops into Libya, other nations will get out. We should never agreed to this operation in the first place. I agree, if Egypt can go it alone, or so it seems, then Libya can work out it’s own problems. We don’t have the man power, money and enough coffins produced to take on another war.
Obama is making Bush look like a respecter of the Congress and a long-term military planner by comparison. Just a few weeks ago Obama said this:
The task that I assigned our forces — to protect the Libyan people from immediate danger, and to establish a no-fly zone — carries with it a U.N. mandate and international support. It’s also what the Libyan opposition asked us to do. If we tried to overthrow Gadhafi by force, our coalition would splinter. We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground to accomplish that mission, or risk killing many civilians from the air. The dangers faced by our men and women in uniform would be far greater. So would the costs and our share of the responsibility for what comes next.
To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq. Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq’s future. But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.
http://www.npr.org/2011/03/28/134935452/obamas-speech-on-libya-a-responsibility-to-act
Now Imperial Obama is out calling for regime change, yet he still hasn’t bothered going to Congress for authorization. This is an unauthorized war of aggression, which such activity is expressly what Obama campaigned against – now instead he’s giving us Bush’s third term while going even more extremist than Bush…but since it’s a Democrat doing it, Obama’s beyond Bush extremism is being treated as the new bipartisan consensus.
The French and the UK (read ELF and BP) are driving this, and want to partition Libya for the oil. They are agitating in Nato for invasion, as are the crusader faction in the US military. As Mahmood Mamdani points out in Libya: behind the politics of humanitarian intervention
afaik, libya supplies only 2% of the world’s oil, so oil is not really the issue here – both sarkozy and cameron were looking for a war to boost sagging domestic popularity and this is crucial for sarkozy as the presidential elections loom closer
either way, there is no happy ending to this – the libyan rebels, in seeking active western involvement, including troop deployment, to resolve the chaos in their favour are sowing the seeds of their own downfall – if there is a rebel government, it will not last for long whatever happens to gaddaffi
Jon Walker has a fresh cross-post already in progress: The National Cooperative Administration: A Job Creation Proposal
Oil is not the only reason. Asia times had a particularly interesting article Libya all about oil, or central banking? which begins:
And Professor Horace Campbell at Syracuse has two particularly relevant articles.
Libya must not be partitioned
and
US Military and Africom: Between the rocks and the crusaders
Which begins:
Though I agree with your overall sentiment, I do believe oil is very much an issue. Libya is in the top 10 largest known oil reserves:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_proven_oil_reserves
That is a huge amount of oil worth trillions.
Triple Evil:
1: Encourage Rebellion
2: Launch Illegal War for Oil based on phony “R2P”
3: Sit By While Rebels Get Crushed
There has been no massacre in Misrata, nor will there be one–just as there would not have been a massacre in Benghazi. The “rebels” are repeating the same charade (“he’s coming to kill us all”) as the one that brought the UN resolution, and it is irresponsible for you to promote it. There have been no massacres in the several coastal cities that Libyan government forces have taken or re-taken in the back-and-forth struggle with the rebels.
An April 10 statement by Human Rights Watch reported that, of 949 injured people, exactly 22 were women and eight were children. This is not the stuff of massacres. Rather, it is urban warfare, which is inherently bloody and nasty.
Or look at the April 14 op-ed by Alan J. Kuperman in the Boston Globe, which argues that “President Barack Obama grossly exaggerated the humanitarian threat to justify military action in Libya.”
This is not to say that war is not awful. It is. But the word “massacre” is thrown around much too easily in today’s discourse.