Coalition planes attack Sirte. Presumably softening it up for a rebel ground assault.
Yep. As I said, it doesn’t look like the bypass is going to happen. Which means the rebels are more confident about their army than a worst-case would imply.
BBC says unconfirmed reports are that Sirte has fallen to the rebels.
Reuters too. It’s been confirmed by the rebel spokesman.
http://www.libyafeb17.com/2011/03/translated-libya-tv-guest-says-jinn-and-saints-fight-for-gaddafi/
Also, Djinn and dead saints fight for Gadaffi’s army.
A number of interrelated reasons:
(1) There does not appear to be a unified rebel leadership, political ideology, or anything resembling a plan for the future. Instead, you have a bunch of disorganized, ragtag gunmen itching for a fight with the authorities. This resembles gang warfare more than it does an actual rebellion.
(2) The “rebels” are exceedingly bad at the actual rebelling. If you need somebody to whine to the Western press or mug for the camera in front of destroyed tanks, they’re your men. Actual fighting? Not so much. Despite having looted much of the nation’s actual weaponry, these supposed revolutionaries have acted more like scared rats than like people with a cause worth dying for. They have scurried away from Gaddafi’s forces at the slightest sign of trouble, and would have been crushed had they not manipulated gullible Westerners into intervening. They talk big, but that is pretty much all they do. Once again, this behavior is fitting for armed thugs, but not for real revolutionaries.
(3) What kind of self-respecting revolutionaries expect foreigners to do their job for them? If you lack the popular support to seize power, then have the decency to go down in a blaze of glory rather than grovel on your knees in front of Westerners in the hope that they will intervene on your oil’s behalf.
(4) If you’re going to get up on a moral high horse, you might want to avoid committing atrocities worse then the ones you allege. The accounts of these criminal lowlifes massacring unarmed blacks for the color of their skin sickens and disgusts me.
Er… he “invited” himself back into Libya, whereupon he was invited by self-proclaimed rebel leaders to join their merry little circle. Which part of this indicates anything at all resembling democracy? This is wishful thinking on the part of you and quite a few other Westerners. At this point, there is nothing to indicate that your favored solution is better than the “problem.” Gaddafi came to power via a coup, and now he is facing a coup perpetuated by others. I am constantly amazed by the Western penchant for “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” line of thinking. Then you people are constantly shocked to learn that this may not be so true after all. Remember when arming and funding the Taliban seemed like an awesome idea? Time to learn from your mistakes.
I just needed to post that article because the image in it would make many people’s heads explode, particularly a certain official of the Communist Party and many conservatives over here. 
Actually a very nice image, and one that made me smile.
Just to clarify: my own allegiances are not set in stone. If the “rebels” actually organize under a coherent policy, and if that policy happens to be socialist/redistributive/anti-privatization in nature, I’ll have no qualms about switching my support over to their side. Obviously, I support proper revolutions done right. What I hate is senseless thuggish violence perpetuated by scum with nothing better to do than bring their own nation to its knees. The Libyan militants will have my support when they can show that they are something more than that.
I think there were some fellows that rebelled against a king in the past that did get decisive help from the French before.
Truth commissions, and it is clear that we can expect one from the UN here also, do not hide items like this. However, as I have seen before, the atrocities of the ones having the tanks and planes overwhelms your feeble moral horse.
You can only make a point by attempting to tell others just part of it, he was involved with the exile movement before.
The reality is that looking at the diverse people rebelling against Ka-Daffy it strains logic to assume that radical Islamists will control everything at the end, far from it, what I have seen so far is a demonstration of how irrelevant members of groups like Al-Qaeda are.
It’s also quite clear that Commissar is not being at all accurate. As already cited, while there is certainly some racist assholery going on, what seems to be happening is confusion over who is and is not one of Quadaffi’s mercenaries, as many have been sub-Saharan. That’s one of the potential complications to employing mercenaries in the first place.
And, as cited. sub-Saharan workers are being brutalized by Quadaffi’s forces as well. In once case refugees were actually forced by Quadaffi’s thugs to stop fleeing and return to work.
Not that there’s much point in playing Atrocity O’Rama and getting into a bad-shit-measuring-contest.
Good, because then it follows that we are more correct and you are wrong.
Really, while I do not agree nowadays with what Che Guevara did after the revolution, his image used by a rebel has to be seen in the context of a fight against a dictator. It shows a level of western awareness that one could not expect from a radical islamist, while it is true that in Cuba there is no democracy, the reality is that I still see images of Che Guevara among many radicals in EL Salvador that do follow democracy nowadays.
You could had fooled many with your efforts so far.
And that is also why I posted that image, I just knew it would make you rethink your position a little bit, we’ll see if that lasts though..
Morning update: Scouts are able to reach Sirte, but the Gadaffi army is about 30 miles east of it, around Nofila, holding the rebels off. Which does seem to match my previous theory. The Red Valley east of Sirte appears to be mined.
There seem to be a small flood of technicals heading Sirte-wards. Reports of Gadaffi vehicle columns leaving Sirte.
Qatar has recognized the rebel government.
I’ll support that too, so long as it’s democratic.
But, there’s really no telling. The Libyan people want Gaddafi out and some form of democracy in. Beyond that, we don’t know what they want in terms of capitalism vs. socialism, Islamism vs. secularism, or anything else. They don’t know what they want, they have never had the chance to sit down and discuss these things in a public forum outside Gaddafi’s control. When they do get that chance, fractures will emerge, I suppose.
Fortunately, Libya has no religious conflict to speak of, almost everybody is Sunni Muslim. As for ethnic conflict, here’s an ethnic map of Libya. The vast majority are Arab-Berber. There are some (mostly desert) regional enclaves of Berbers, Touaregs and Tebou. I understand Gaddafi was at pains to suppress their languages in the name of national unity. What they want most out of a revolution presumably would be more cultural autonomy. I think that’s all manageable. The new Libya will not break up along religious or ethnic lines. Nor along class lines – this isn’t a class war and I don’t see one on the horizon.
As for lines of political ideology as such – as noted above, no telling.
That leaves the Arab-Berber tribes, about 20 major ones. If effective central authority post-Gaddafi is not established, and if Libya is really as tribal as everybody says, then I suppose a Somalia-like outcome is possible, each tribe forming a petty state in its territory and fighting its neighbors. But, there is a lot of vocal enthusiasm in the streets for national unity, just at the moment.
Say, where’s Bibliovore? He hasn’t posted since 3/17. We need some more Libyan perspective here!
Maybe he’s in Libya.
Nitpick : Touaregs are in fact a Berber sub-group. Basically those Berbers who are (or used to be) nomads living in the Sahara.
Gaddafi’s troops halt rebel advance. This could stalemate.
International conference on Libya begins in London. Apparently the puzzle is how to arm the rebels while still respecting the embargo.
There is no “puzzle” here; the embargo is quite unambiguous. Arming any party to the Libyan conflict would violate the embargo, and thus be illegal under the current international legal framework. This may not matter to you, but it would eliminate the current NATO pretext of being in Libya to enforce international law, thus revealing this crusade as nothing more than blatant arrogant imperialism. Moreover, I would argue that any such move would be illegal under the current Security Council Resolution, as increasing the amount of weaponry available in a largely urban civil war would unquestionably pose an increased risk to the civilian population.
Not really. We’re using A-10’s and gunships now. As long as Gadaffi’s troops are out in the open they are easy targets.
No, that’s just it. If the rebels want to take Sirt and push west, it’s debatable – in fact, it has already become controversial – whether that comes under the “protecting civilians” writ of the UN mandate. They might have to do the rest on their own, with no Coalition/NATO air support beyond what is necessary to keep Gaddafi’s planes and choppers grounded. No more strafing Gaddafi’s tanks and trucks.