Gaddafi has it surrounded which means trucks and troops are still in an organized front. A-10’s and gunships are troop support weapons. You do not want to see one on the horizon because then it’s too late to run.
Unless you have a Stinger handy. I don’t like the idea of NATO sending in close air support.
Wait, whose A-10’s and gunships? Do the rebels themselves have an effective force? Because they might have to rely on that.
Yes, yes. The question is, will they be used in the Battle of Sirt?
As the linked item suggests, the idea to seems to be to attack regime forces out ahead of the rebels, not in direct support of, or in real coordination with.
So I’ll say no.
No, I think the idea is to send a message to Ghaddfi’s troops that this isn’t going to be a cake-walk, a well-paid romp over untrained, ill-equipped civilians. You want to die for Ghadaffi? Step right up!
I think I described the tactic and you described the objective.
Nevertheless, Clinton says last week’s UN resolution overrides the 1973 embargo, and allows the U.S. to arm the rebels.
A case could also be made that taking out Gaddafi is the only way to protect civilians effectively.
If Gaddafi’s forces are surrounding the city in an effort to cut off the rebels then they are targetable. The aircraft mentioned were designed for this kind of mission. There are still tanks and guns in play. It’s pointless to send in a barrage of million dollar missiles to do the work of $10,000 worth of ammo and jet fuel.
It probably means we have special ops on the ground directing fire.
Well, as long as the special ops troops are wearing sandals, I guess technically there are still no “boots on the ground”. 
No, now Gaddafi’s troops are defending a Gaddafi-held city, where, for all we know, the civilian population is actually loyal to him. (I haven’t heard from any journalists reporting out of Sirt about on-the-ground conditions or opinions . . . not surprisingly, at this point.) And the UN resolution does not actually say the international community can help the rebels win this.
I could be wrong, but I believe Clinton is saying February’s UN Resolution 1970 (an arms embargo) is now overridden by March’s UN Resolution 1973, and she claims 1973 has less restrictive arms embargo language. The article doesn’t make this clear, however.
I agree. Gadhafi and his army are almost inherently a threat to civilians and can be attacked wherever found (until they surrender). Doesn’t matter whether the army is on the offensive or defensive.
There are certainly plenty of people opposed to him in those areas too. Known or suspected dissidents have been disappeared in Tripoli. Some apparently reappeared as corpses at staged scenes of civilian airstrike casualties. The rebel leadership, despite growing international recognition, hasn’t been willing to name most of its top officials for fear that Gaddafi would punish their relatives and home towns.
Lots of wishful thinking going on. Gadaffy has the best and most arms. He has trained troops . He also has a lot of support om the Libyan people. He gave them AKs. They did not turn on him. They fought on his side.
I do not know if his backing will melt away if someone sends in a huge force. But I think without it, Gadaffy wins.
Towns?
I mean, that’s like if the Allies had bombed Linz because Hitler was born there.
Hope he stays safe. And reports back to us! 
Yes. Who can say how credible the idea is, but I heard a rebel spokesman say that in an Al Jazeera interview several days ago.
Certainly there are. There are just as certainly people who support him in the rebel-controlled areas, some of whom are also no longer with us.
Sirte appears to be more of a loyalist city than not.
You know, I don’t know where we get this idea that Libya’s population is some monolithic bloc panting at the bit for us to come in and relieve them from the dictator. That’s what we expected in Iraq, and it was no more true there than it is in Libya.
Just as credible as the concept that Qaddaffi was going to massacre the entire population of Benghazi, which also came from a rebel spokesman.