Free Markets, Free People

10 Rebels killed in coalition air strike

So far the “No-Fly Zone” is going swimmingly.  Yesterday we had a report of 40 civilians killed in coalition air strikes in Tripoli (remember, the coalition’s mission is to protect civilians) and today we learn that the coalition managed to kill 10 rebels in a strike yesterday (they’re supposedly helping the rebels, remember?).

Fog of war?  Eh, yes and no.  Mostly just a piss poor war.  As I’ve mentioned before, any competent army will learn to adapt and overcome when possible and that’s apparently what pro-Gadhafi forces are doing.

First they went to vehicles similar to the rebels making it very hard to sort out who is who on the ground.   Then they took it a step further, according to Reuters:

A Western coalition air strike hit a group of rebels on the eastern outskirts of Brega late on Friday, killing at least 10 of them, rebel fighters at the scene said on Saturday.

A Reuters correspondent saw the burned out husks of at least four vehicles including an ambulance by the side of the road near the eastern entrance to the oil town.

Men prayed at freshly dug graves covered by the rebel red, black and green flag nearby.

"Some of Gaddafi’s forces sneaked in among the rebels and fired anti-aircraft guns in the air," said rebel fighter Mustafa Ali Omar. "After that the NATO forces came and bombed them."

Rebel fighters at the scene said as many as 14 people may have died in the bombing, which they said happened around 10 p.m. local time (2000 GMT)

Wonderful.

Meanwhile it appears the possible, or should I say anticipated end state may be – stalemate?  Really?   That’s what all this effort is about?

U.S. officials are becoming increasingly resigned to the possibility of a protracted stalemate in Libya, with rebels retaining control of the eastern half of the divided country but lacking the muscle to drive Moammar Gaddafi from power.

Such a deadlock — perhaps backed by a formal cease-fire agreement — could help ensure the safety of Libyan civilians caught in the crossfire between the warring sides. But it could also dramatically expand the financial and military commitments by the United States and allied countries that have intervened in the six-week-old conflict, according to U.S. officials familiar with planning for the Libyan operation.

Ya think?  That’s always a sign of a well thought out, well planned strategy, isn’t it?

What you’re talking about then is a semi-permanent NFZ, because immediately upon its withdrawal, Benghazi would be under siege again.

What a great solution, no?  Split the country, prop up and support some government in the east (an area that produced 20% of the suicide bombers for Iraq and  has admitted jihadis in the governing councils and rebel fighters) and then fly cover for the next, oh, 10 years or so?

Brilliant.

~McQ

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

27 Responses to 10 Rebels killed in coalition air strike

  • Obama gets us involved in much smarter, more nuanced quagmires than that idiot Texan.

  • What more is there to say? When you use enough force to get into a war but not enough to win it, or don’t even plan to win it, you are guaranteed a f#^&&*up result.  

    • When you have the lethality of modern Western arms, and a resourceful enemy, it seems like some inventive and bodacious soul would be expected to do what they are saying the GaDaffy forces did.

  • At first, I was all in favor of our Lightworker Obama aiding the Twitter-using young rebels in Libya. Lately, though, I’ve been thinking about Ghandi, and I’m not so sure that all this death and destruction are such a good thing.

    Let me assure you, my change of heart has absolutely nothing to do with things looking bad for Obama’s strategy. Nope. Stop saying that. I watched the movie Ghandi, and it completely changed my whole attitude about all this. :-)

    Which doesn’t either mean that I’m so superficial that I think about such events in total, movie-grade stereotyping. I’m a wise pragmatic moderate leftist with an advanced degree, degree, degree, degree, degree, degree, degree [*** AUTOMATIC RESET TO FIX INFINITE LOOP BUG ON ACADEMIC DEGREES ***] which means I have godlike powers of political science. I look at things in depth, and do rich, creamy analysis, and it’s a complete coincidence that my analysis matches leftist talking points to about twelve decimal places. {giggle} :lol:

    My position also isn’t mushy and reversible because the left is really torn about this whole thing. It’s not either true that Obama is basically turning into Bush on foreign policy. Obama thinks like me, and I loathe Bush with every fiber of my being have clearly expressed that the Bush regime was responsible for the biggest foreign policy disaster in our history. {eyes rolling}

    So, you see, there’s a contradiction there, so Obama can’t really be like Bush. He just can’t. Every time I think about the possibility, I get distracted by a magenta caterpillar with Sarah Palin’s face and ample bosom, wriggling in through a crack somewhere. :-(

    Anyway, this whole Libya thing is so difficult to explain my total flip-flops come to a final conclusion that I’ve been spending my time thinking and writing about quantum physics. You should come over to my blog and read about it, and no fair actually bringing up Dilbert space or superposed stuff or anything else that has any math in it. I’m into the spiritual side of quantum physics, because I think life is basically spiritual. That’s why I let my spirit soar into these vast intellectual realms, and delude myself realize that such spiritual things are what really matter. Certainly they are more important than the fact that I have a low-paid position at a mediocre second-rate school that doesn’t even grant PhDs. Yes, I’m actually quite brilliant, as proven by my advanced degree, degree, degree, degree, degree, degree, degree [*** AUTOMATIC RESET TO FIX INFINITE LOOP BUG ON ACADEMIC DEGREES ***], and the fact that I CHOOSE to teach an inconsequential subject at a backwoods moose cow college doesn’t invalidate my brilliance. Stop saying it does. You’re wrong. I decree it. {chuckle} :o

    So I’ll keep on observing this Libya situation in light of my spiritual pondering and my reflections on Ghandi, and eventually decide what I think about it. And it’s not either true that I’m just stalling about it until we can find out if somehow it’s going to work out for Obama, or until I get some coherent talking points from Newsweek. Nope. I’m pondering and reflecting. Really. LOL. ;)

    • Ghandi seems like a very wise, sorta perverted little guy who had a lot right, while having some fundamental things wrong.
      His flirtation with the Japanese as a foil against the Brits would have gotten millions of Indians slaughtered.
      Passive resistance only works with a really basically good people.
      The Islamists would cut off his head and laugh at him for bleeding.

      • I always said that  …

        passive resistance only works on those who can be shamed

        … for that reason I always thought it would never work with Bill Clinton

      • I am always amused by the story about Ghandi where he is asked what he thinks about Western civilization and he replies “I think it would be a good idea”. It’s a great line, and I would have been tempted to use it myself,  but  if true it shows what a putz Ghandi was. If it wasn’t for western civilization he would have been just another dead troublemaker in an unmarked mass grave.

  • It’s not Obama’s fault.  He protected the civilians.  It’s NATO that screwed this up.

    And you KNOW that’s how the spin will go

  • The will help build the anger of the “rebels” toward the U.S., especially as they experience increasing duplicity and double-talk from the frontline elements of American policy on the ground (the CIA, according to leaks from the administration). If Obama plays his cards right, the rebels will soon enough shift their animus in our direction, especially after the possibility of winning in Libya withers.

    • GaDaffy has a history of attacking us when we are under weak leadership.  That could go VERY badly for us…and the MEEEEsiah.

      • There’s no telling what Qaddafi will do now, but the big question is why is the administration pretending that they had no idea who the “rebels” were? First of all, it’s doubtful that is true, which means that they know they’ve been helping a movement controlled or heavily influenced by Islamists who either condone or support terrorism against the United States. On the other hand, if the administration actually did not know the ideological composition of the “rebels,” then that, at once, speaks to the incompetency of our intel agencies and to the administration having no idea whether supporting the “rebels” was favorable to either American or Libyan interests.

        But the bottom line, I believe, is that the administration was not interested in any of those questions. And by the administration, I mean Obama.

        • Where are the leakers who’s books will be published in Oct. 2012! Can’t wait to read what is really going on!

    • So you’re saying that this is a repeat of Gulf War I ?
      I guess by that reckoning, it will require that Sasha or Malia become President before Libya will be free.

  • At this juncture, a stalemate is the most hopeful outcome I think Obama is looking at.
    Which could be why this is being floated now.
    I have thought for weeks that GaDaffy would prevail, and I still do.  I hate it, but that seems likely to me.

    • A stalemate is a “hopeful” outcome in what sense?

      Also, you’re reacting to Qaddafi who was a terrorist back in the days when he was a Soviet client. His ambitions have been trimmed back considerably since then. As sickening as he is, he’s an enemy of the Islamists, and he was no threat to the U.S. Even if his considerable appetite for revenge has been set off by his “son” Obama (as Qaddafi referred to our president in a letter to him), it’s still an even bet that the “rebels” would be more dangerous, both to the U.S. and Libyans, than Qaddafi.

      On the other hand, it is not inconceivable that Qaddafi could reach a “peace” with the rebels, now that he’s relieved of his tentative cooperation with the U.S., where part of the deal is that he supports the rebels terrorist aspirations, with deniability. That is, he pays them off, and they blow things up. And the U.S. has no leverage with him to go after them.

      Welcome to the Casbah.

      • “Hopeful” in the sense that it is not an outright GaDaffy win.
        I agree with pretty much everything you said, except the part about being a Soviet client.  Russia and China are actors here now.  As is Iran and the NORKS.
        GaDaffy has currency.  The NORKS have STUFF, and they NEED currency.

        • What I meant was that during the 70s and 80s when Qaddafi was active in terrorism, Libya was a Soviet client state, meaning that they sold him weapons (MiGs, for instance) and gave him aid and either outsourced or condoned those terrorist jobs. His terrosism is an artifact of the Cold War. Much like the early Palestinian terrorism, which was KGB directed.

          I don’t see any terrorism connection between Qaddafi and North Korea (though not impossible now that he’s out in the cold vis a vis the U.S.) or with the Russians or Chinese. One never knows, literally, what the Chinese are up to, but Lord knows they have cash on hand. Their idea of mischief isn’t blowing things up so much as taking things over. The Russians have problems of their own, with internal terrorism, and might actually want to stay away from anything that will leave a stink on them.

          But…who knows?

          • There are connections between Nork and Libya. They catch people smuggling missile parts from Nork to Libya in the past.
            When these countries are client states they buys Migs and such, but the reality is they could probably do just as well to buy mortars, tanks, etc. and train their troops properly.
            Why do these guys even buy air forces and AA missile systems when they seem to get blanked out within 48 hours of starting a war.

  • Ex-Mujahedeen Help Lead Libyan Rebels
    There is the remote possibility that Obama could repeat the Bush “fly-paper” scenario (aka Iraq) but this time it would be Arab vs Arab.  Ingenious if it works.
    But it also offers the possibility that in a few months, Obama could be helping “he whose name has multiple spellings,” Gadhafi.

    • As I was suggesting to Rags, just above, Qaddafi could buy these guys off in a minute, by leaving them alone in Libya while financing a terror campaign against their soon enough mutual enemy: The Great Satan.

      • If the cause can be justified within Islam, being bought off with money is perfectly fine

        • Easy-peasy.  If you can have prostitution by “marrying” a prostitute, then “divorce” her when you’re done, NOTHING is religiously impossible.

  • Look at the track record of what happens when UN approved wars end in stalemate:
    North Korea/South Korea. How did that work out?
    Iraq: How did that work out?
    There may be other examples as well.

  • I don’tknow, I think it takes real genius to take a fairly common third world situation that has nothing to do with the US and turn it into a major lose-lose  domestic and international issue.