Throughout parts of Libya under rebel control, people are frustrated with NATO. Between its slow pace of attacks and the errant strikes that have killed rebel fighters, the speculation now is that the Western coalition lacks the resources and resolve to help the rebels topple Gaddafi.
The chief problem plaguing both NATO and the rebels is lack of coordination. Rebel leaders complain that they must jump through hoops to reach NATO officials. ...
Unable to order airstrikes, rebels in the field are forced to wait for unannounced NATO bombings before they can advance. ...
The rebels never know when NATO will fly in to their rescue. ... The alliance's officials have responded to such comments in the past by noting that their mandate extends only to protecting civilians, not toppling Gaddafi.
We're bombing Khaddafi's forces and trying to kill him, so he's obviously mad at us.
But in our new grand world of smart foreign policy, we're also failing to do what we could easily do to help our nominal allies on the rebel side. They, fighting and dying to topple Khaddafi, are naturally upset that we fly high above them and help according to our apparent mood. So the rebels are getting mad at us. They just don't appreciate the American foreign policy goal of "leveling the playing field," I guess.
If this war goes on much longer, we'll have a Libya angry with the West no matter who wins the civil war. Is that nuanced enough for you?
