Our president may say we are "tightening the noose" around Khaddafi, but the facts on the ground say otherwise. So what if more and more people declare in somber and serious tones that they don't like Khaddafi? And even the boldest suggestions in the sainted international community conference rooms for action--a "UN" (read that, "tell the Americans to do it") no-fly zone--fall short on two facts: one, Russia or China will veto it in the Security Council to avoid a precedent; and two, a no-fly zone will have no appreciable impact on the course of the fighting.
So while we chat it up with others seeking a consensus, NATO won't act because of divisions within the alliance. The Arab League is unlikely to come down on the pro-rebel side as they talk amongst themselves (again, but for the grace of Allah, and all that). And the European Union won't act without the blessing of someone. And if they got it, I bet they'd still want to talk some more to avoid action. Heck they wouldn't even endorse the idea of a no-fly zone at some future time. The African Union is getting in to the talk game, too, hoping to get the rebels and loyalists to talk. The way things are going, they'll talk all right. But it will be bleeding and broken rebels in basements talking to loyalist interrogators.
So rebels who Westerners hoped three weeks ago would quickly topple Khaddafi with only our words of support to get us a spot in the victory parade rather than requiring action, are starting to get pounded by the superior firepower and organization of the loyalist side. What do the rebels want?
Not more talk and words, naturally:
Many rebels were angry at international inaction.
"Where is the West? How are they helping? What are they doing," shouted one angry fighter.
Poor chap. He lacks the nuance to appreciate the "tightening noose" and growing consensus in West conference rooms that Khaddafi is a bad guy. But what can you expect from such scruffy men holding rifles? That fighter probably went to a state college, or something! My God, his pronoun doesn't even match the noun he references!
Strangely, the rebels insist on wanting actual action from the West:
Libya's insurgent leader said any delay in imposing a no-fly zone could let Gaddafi regain control. "We ask the international community to shoulder their responsibilities," Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, head of the rebels' National Libyan Council, said.
"The Libyans are being cleansed by Gaddafi's air force. We asked for a no-fly zone to be imposed from day one, we also want a sea embargo," he said.
Like I've said repeatedly, a no-fly zone won't work. But rebels are too divided so far to ask for real help. This is all they can agree on. Get us moving into actual action and if the loyalists continue to win despite that, more rebels will be convinced that keeping the West out so the rebels will "own the revolt" will be meaningless when they find themselves sitting in a basement in Tripoli under a bare light bulb (non-twisty, of course) while a loyalist with a clipboard takes down the names of everyone they know.
Sadly, rebels in Benghazi don't understand our new foreign policy approach:
"Help us to become a democratic country," said one banner strung between lampposts and written in English and Arabic.
What are they thinking? It doesn't even matter if the demonstrators want or understand what "democracy" means other than the downfall of Khaddafi (a good short-term goal, to be sure). The point is that democracy promotion is no longer an American goal (most old European states couldn't care less and never did believe Arabs were "ready" for it). Don't they know that we can't impose democracy? Don't they appreciate the benefits of doing it all on their own?
Well, they'd better appreciate it. Because if the rebels are counting on effective action from the West (and no, a post-conflict European report issued in 2012 about how the rebels are at fault for their defeat won't count, no matter how brightly festooned with ribbons and wax seals the 2,000-page fully foot-noted document--in English and French language versions--is), they'll hang for that confidence. Ah, nuance! It burns like acid dribbled on exposed skin, huh?
Again, I'm not saying we should openly intervene with a couple divisions. I think we have effective covert alternatives to that, although the chances they will work are diminishing as time goes on (although we may be doing them even as we speak, I suppose). But my point is that without our leadership pressing for action, we are seeing how the sainted international community reacts to a madman at war with his people without the leadership of America. The world community already knows how to talk--how do we add to that?
Libya is the first test of how a post-America world can handle the threats to world peace. How's that working out so far? Are you really ready to say that DNI Clapper is dim-witted for telling a Senate committee that Khaddafi will probably win this civil war?
UPDATE: Thank you to Instapundit for the link.
UPDATE: Well, the Arab League sort of punted, calling on the UN to approve a no-fly zone rather than simply asking America to do it. The article says that NATO would be happy with the Arab League request, but I doubt that is true. The EU, meanwhile, refused to work on a UN resolution to authorize a no-fly zone and upped the ante in the talking game, calling for the EU, AU, and Arab League to all talk together. Amazing.
UPDATE: And thanks to Jack's Newswatch for the link.
UPDATE: Thanks to Daily Pundit and--finally--a tip of the hat to the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy for noticing. You toil away in obscurity for years, and then one day it all works out.
UPDATE: I see the Wall Street Journal has similar thoughts.
UPDATE: Thank you to The Virginian for the link.
UPDATED: A belated thanks to Mad Minverva. She linked on St. Patrick's Day, in my own defense.
