Libya’s rebels have gained the upper hand, but what happens after they claim victory is not at all clear

Dear Showcat.

What a wonderfully appropriate name. It's all a great show isn't it?
I guess all those refugees were part of some huge show huh? Never an uprising, all the videos of the armies on the streets and the mercenaries were just a great show, a prelude to a limited NATO attack? Am I getting close? I guess the aid agencies were in on it too, and all the people in Benghazi got their costumes out of a big old trunk under a stage in a theatre to put on a huge show so that everyone would be fooled. Fooled into thinking there was a popular uprising that was being put down by the army. Egypt's show was pretty good too, but this had more zing. Tunisia. Don't get me started, that show will never win a Tony award. Benghazi on the other hand, very convincing.

Well golly me. They did a smashing job. Call me fooled. I guess I did believe what the press agencies all over the world ( except for maybe RT and the state TV out of Caracas, famed for their impartiality and ability to say whatever they want without any regime interference) were just having us on. It all makes sense. It seems, on the surface, needlessly complex and near impossible and they did such a good job of fooling everyone. Everyone that is, but Showcat. Yes. Showcat saw through it all.

I hope the Economist's editors resign in disgrace now that Showcat has shown them to be all part of an elaborate international hoax. Shame on them. Shame on me. I was fooled too. It seems so obvious now. The entire Arab uprising. A hoax.

NATO and US bombed Libya because the Colonel wanted to nationalize the oil fields, the Chavez style. If Libya's new government wants to fulfill the promises of "good lives" to the Libyan people, it eventually has to rein in the profit-taking by Western oil companies, and nationalize the oil fields. What will NATO do then? A ground invasion?

NATO's claim about Libya's "impending massacre" is as ludicrous as the claim about Iraqi's WMD. The parallel is unmistakable. Yet so many people were fouled just like the first time around.

Wouldn't forming militia with all female units signal desperation, not dominance? The children's crusade comes to mind.

I'm not against female soldiers but let's be realistic. Under optimal circumstances I don't think these militia would be formed.

It will take about six months.
Two and a half months to go.

Keep going.
Slow and steady wins the race.

There is, and always has been, a strong argument for the military removal of gaddafi. His rule was never legitimate, let alone benign.

It was never undertaken in earnest for numerous reasons, not the least of which was the risk of unacceptable civilian casualties.

Given that, the conduct of this intervention leaves me profoundly uncomfortable. The noble mobilisation of international air power to avert an impending invasion of benghazi has become an airforce effectively under thr command of a ragtag militia to lay siege to other civilian cities. How can months of airstrikes not cause civilian suffering? How will there not be house-to-house reprisals in captured/liberated cities? Most of the sub-saharan refugees in border camps and leaky boats were escaping rebel attacks that equated having black skin with being a gaddafi mercenary. The first plane shot down by the nofly zone was a rebel mig, in the early days when it seemed the world wanted all parties to stop killing. Now the UN is bankrolling the rebels and providing videogame-style death-from-above strikes on people not actively engaged in combat (including gadaffis sleeping son and grandaughters) and all but ruling out negotiation.

What is the overall strategy? What are likely, acceptable and achievable scenarios? Headlines in the west seem to assume gaddafi's departure is a fait accompli, and talk of transition plans. But, contrary to the article, the coastal road to Tripoli is not clear after the cities of brega, ras lanuf and sidra (and pity the poor people of ajdabiya, as their town is passed from side to side). Gadaffis hometown of Sirte lies in between, presumably well fortified and loyal to gaddafi. Perhaps the rebels may take it without a bloodbath. Probably not. They could then merge with their allies in misurata and march upon Gaddafi's Tripoli stronghold. Armchair generals love this stuff, cnn serving up infographics of opposing forces. Some NATO folk might even be in line for medals and promotions. But Tripoli is a densely populated city of more than a million. The casualties of a desperate urban conflict could be staggering. A western country would never countenance a risk like that to one of its own cities, unless absolutely necessary. And there would still be no certainty of a swift deposing of gaddafi. I feel we are inching our way with the rebels towards this outcome and can't help but feel there must be some scope for a face-saving negotiated solution. It seems to me the west would rather civilian suffering in Libya and wartime prestige at home (especially with minimal risk to their own soldiers) than give gaddafi face.

As a member of the international community, I feel distinctly queasy putting my name behind a military push of dubious mandate, with nebulous objectives and strategies and with such potential for civilian suffering.
The damage it is doing to the responsibility-to-protect principle would be almost an afterthought were we not seeing the immediate blowback in the international response to events in Syria, Yemen and Bahrain.

The ends don't justify the means, but if they did, the means should be well-considered and the ends clear. I fear this intervention fails on all counts.

Benghazi must be a foreign correspondents wet dream. The underdog ragtags rebels in the desert have an almost starwars like appeal and give great (if predictable and usually overly optimistic) quotes, photo opportunities and comradeship. It helps to get some kudos for being in a warzone yet far from the battlelines.

But what about the other side? They have fought too long and stubbornly to be just mercenaries or coerced. But all I seem to get is a steady stream of guff from one impotent side who nevertheless see no reason to negotiate while they have NATO dragons in the air. This article is a case in point.

But this is good!!!

The longer the fighting the better!!

Why?

Because rebels need to be organized and united! They have time to organize themselves and recreate the economy.

Just imagine. if they win tomorrow they will just start a bitter inner fighting!

One thing that is certain is the fact that EU should help them economically! I think a free trade zone plus some technical assistance should start tomorrow!

A very thoughtful article, more so considering the nature of the topic.

I would quibble though with one assertion; that rebel lack of prior access to government management is a serious handicap. You give Libya too little credit.

I know the people of Benghazi, Misrata, Jebel Nafusa who are now able to express themselves freely are united in part because of their mutual hatred and loathing of Brother Leader, but I seriously doubt his removal will be seen a final solution to Libya's woes; or that Libyan citizens will not know steps which need to be taken in absence of his (Qaddafi's) guiding presence. Most sophisticated Libyan will see his departure as a beginning, not an end. My guess is most welcome the challenge.

As mentioned Benghazi serves as example, a city hallowed and deprived by the Qaddafi regime was left with little organized structure to build from, yet despite having to fight a war against a much more powerful opponent, with a disastrous shortage of funds or income, rely on volunteers and promises has manage to pull together enough resources to administer their own affairs, at least until more peaceful conditions arise. Ditto Nafusa.

My own feeling is not only will Libya manage without a prior full development and control of its infrastructure, but it will be to their advantage. Unlike its neighbors turned by the Arab Spring, Libya will not to be so entrenched in the past to handicap its change to a more democratic system. Its not really that bad to be able to rebuild government services, particularly given the resources Libya has, from the ground up.

and as an aside, I also fully agree that Libya is (and never was) a stalemate; which is why this article is already dated. Events on the ground move fast and at times I think the traditional press in such a turbulent environment is only an organ of historical analysis, despite its pretenses otherwise.

This is not what i've read elsewhere. Just yesterday alone, 19 rebels were killed in Misrata, and Colonel is hanging on strong, forming militia with all female units. Puzzling.

Israeli news sites are reporting the exact opposite of this piece. They say NATO agreed to a Russian backed deal leaving Zenga Zenga in Tripoli in an humiliating climbdown for the West. We shall see ...

@Showcat

He really was going to kill those people, he's crazy enough for that. Before there was Osama bin Laden, Gaddafi was the one financing terrorists to blow airplanes in Europe, too bad he was forgiven.

He has promised to destroy Tripoli as soon as the rebels enter the city, I guess it will be tough to execute but this plan (reported by Russian officials) for me means one thing:

Gaddafi knows the rebels are coming for him and sooner or later will be in Tripoli.

People tend to be fouled by the "war for oil" argument and every war in any territory with oil is for oil, this is the propaganda that supports numerous oil rich autocracies, you should know this!

Wishful thinking, that's what this article is. Especially since the news is, that Libyan forces repelled a coordinated attack by NATO forces and rebels against the strategic oil town of Brega in the east of the country.

And this is not for the first time, is it? Rebel forces in the country's eastern half have been stuck outside Brega for months. During this period supposedly world's mightiest were conducting concerted assault on the country... with nothing to show for it?

Hi,
Plan B. Take away his Sun glasses.
We have another dittering "testicles up". Machiavelli would have done it different.
Your picture, Who needs guns sights ?
Regards Dr. Terence Hale

Seems to be a optimist report

problem, we face so many attempts to discourage us to pursue the campain !

I still wonder why no troops on the ground weren't allowed if the people were expecting a quick victory !

@Nige_2,

The last time around, the news of Iraq's WMD was all over the world. Powell's excellent performance was there for all to see. Now, where is the slightest evidence that Gaddafi planned mass murder? Where are the truckloads of Viagra that supposed to help soldiers to commit mass rape? Is there a shred of evidence of mass rape -now that large swaths of Libya have been overrun by the rebels? Black mercenaries? Oh my my, they are mercenaries, and they are black! Do you know this is Africa? These are also Libyans? from inland tribal areas? I think the Western media did an excellent job of stirring up your most primitive inner racist fears.

You swallow the Western media propaganda line, sink and hook, AFTER the Iraq WMD debacle. You are hopeless.

@Jose Carlos Costa,

It is an oil war. Gaddafi wanted to renegotiate the contracts with Western oil companies, so Libya will get better term. He was prepared to go all the way including nationalization of oil fields and assets. That was why he was promptly bombed by the NATO and US. Anyway, the best that can happen to Libya is to become another Saudi Arabia, the worst, Iraq 2.

6 months passed, there may pass 6 years and there will be no ground forces of West or USA.

It's clearly enough, they did not start this war for civilians. People are being killed daily.
West need this war more then USA dut to the fact that EU is falling down in a worse crisis then USA and west is putting its hands on arab's oil to suck cash from it.

France and England can never implement democracy no where.
And since USA failed with Iraq and Afghanistan, France & England can never make democracy in arab world.

All this war in Libya start for no reason.
Most of protests in these countries were financed by USA. Especialy in Egypt.

USA's attitude (by putting it's hands in interior issues) is diving world by West and East, this time not Europe but globe.

Absolutely agree with Showcat statements:
Libya's "impending massacre" is another propaganda statement to justify the war very similar to Iraqi’s WMD threats. But the answer is plain and simple OIL, OIL, OIL and threat of nationalization.
Why do you think that ‘rebels’ would be better than the colonel? Would they let the West extract Libyan oil for small royalties in exchange for the Iraqi’s style democracy?

There is so much contradictory stuff out there that I don't know what to believe. I do know two things: Qaddafi is still there after 5 months, and when you have reactionary forces in the U.S. going soft on Qaddafi, then something must be up. I noticed that in the republican debates none of the candidates were particularly hawkish on Qaddafi. Now I'm reading this in the right wing National Review:

"War in Libya: Dumb and Dumber"

The only thing worse than starting a stupid war is losing it.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/271847/war-libya-dumb-and-dumber-...

"Almost daily over the last four months we were told that Moammar Qaddafi was about ready to throw in the towel and give up.

"Libya, after all, is not a distant Afghanistan or Iraq with a population of some 30 million. Yet this tiny police state of less than 7 million people, conveniently located on the Mediterranean Sea opposite nearby Europe, continues to thwart the three great powers of the NATO alliance and thousands of “Arab Spring” rebels.

"Four months ago, intervention seemed to the Obama administration to be a quick, painless way of ridding the world of a longstanding international menace while gaining praise for helping “democratic” reformers. Oil, of course, is always a subtext in any Middle Eastern war.

"But almost immediately contradictions arose. Sometimes we ordered Qaddafi to leave; at other times we insisted we were only helping the rebels. Bombs seemed to be aimed at the Qaddafi family, even as we denied that such targeted killing was the goal — and were reminded that U.S. law forbids the assassination of foreign leaders.

"The rebels were variously described as would-be democratic reformers, inept amateurs, hard-core Islamists, and mixtures of all three. Months later, no one seems to have the answer, though many of the insurgents share a deep-seated racial and religious hatred of Qaddafi’s African mercenaries. Who knows whether post-Qaddafi Libya will become an Islamic republic, a Somalia-like mess, another Arab dictatorship, or a Turkish-style democracy?"

The Libyan War ends. Obama makes Moscow peace broker. NATO halts strikes.

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report July 14, 2011

http://www.debka.com/article/21115/

UPDATE:

Qaddafi attacks western rebels to improve his bargaining position for ending war

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report July 15, 2011

http://www.debka.com/article/21122/

Qaddafi regime cuts off the spigot to Italy; says he's in secret negotiations with Russian, Chinese, and AMERICAN companies:

AP

"Libyan government spokesman Moussa Ibrahim scoffed at various reports of rebel successes, saying their few advances were only when Gadhafi's forces temporarily withdraw to avoid air strikes.

"As we withdraw, the 150 joyous rebels go dancing around with some reporters with them," Ibrahim said. "And the moment when NATO doesn't have enough rockets or bombs, the army moves back in kills 20 or 30 rebels, and we have the town again."

"Libyan officials have warned nations involved in the NATO campaign that they could be barred from investing or participating in the country's oil sector if they continue to side with the rebels.

"But Italy — Libya's former colonial master — appears to be the first country to be formally barred.

"The Italian government needs to totally forget about Libyan oil and every agreement we signed in the past," al-Mahmoudi, the prime minister, told reporters in the Libyan capital. "ENI will have to look elsewhere for business."

"Currently ENI's assets are nearly evenly divided between rebel-held and government-held territory, excluding offshore sites. ENI had no comment.

"The Libyan prime minister said Libya was already in negotiations with Russian, Chinese and even American companies for future oil deals. He said Italy was specifically targeted because of Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's once-close relationship with the North African nation and a friendship pact signed by the two nations.

"To add insult to injury, Berlusconi says he never agreed to the aggression and was pushed to participate," said al-Mahmoudi, referring to Berlusconi's July 7 comments that the Italian parliament forced his hand.

"Well, if he says he was pressured to attack Libya, then I was pressured by the Libyan people to cut ties with Italy," al-Mahmoudi said.

"Despite the U.S.'s leading role in the attacks and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's recent remarks that Gadhafi's days were numbered, the prime minister specifically left the door open to U.S. companies because its role in the campaign is largely restricted to logistics.

"(America) reviewed its position and its participation has been much weaker and this helps the U.S. with its relationship with Libya," al-Mahmoudi said. "That's why were are prepared to work with the U.S. in the oil industry."

BDTbC8k4cR

and isn't it funny I found DEbKa and Ria Novosti saying the contrary, that troops are forecasted on the ground.

This war is covered by so many contradictive reports, just take the serious "Defense" sites news ansd some Libyan's twitter accounts, and you'll see that this article reflects the nearest reality of the ground !

"knows whether post-Qaddafi Libya will become an Islamic republic, a Somalia-like mess, another Arab dictatorship, or a Turkish-style democracy?"

can't be, Somalia has no oil !

Lybia will become a second Saudi Arabia, whereas a more pro-western goverment will get support !