Troops loyal to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi on Sunday shelled the rebel-held city of Ajdabiya, a strategic eastern town that has been the scene of fierce fighting in recent weeks. ...
On Sunday, dozens of vehicles, some of them rebel trucks with heavy machine guns mounted in the back, could be seen fleeing Ajdabiya toward the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, about 100 miles (160 kilometers) to the north.
But NATO has struggled to keep less than a wing of fighter aircraft on strike missions for a month. So Khaddafi's money may outlast the supply of smart bombs in the arsenals of Britain and France.
But it gets worse. Khaddafi at least knows what he is fighting for--his regime's survival in the short run and the recovery of his eastern territory in the long run.
What is NATO (and the associated powers) fighting for? Some recognize the rebels as the official government of Libya. Others want to overthrow the regime of Khaddafi. Others just hope for that. Others just want to enforce UN resolution 1973 (and related 1970, I guess). Others just want to appear to be on the side of the people versus autocrats. Others side with Khaddafi, in practice.
And now the argument over the objective is taking place through a debate over the need for a "second resolution." Wow. It seems like just yesterday the world community was arguing over the need for one of those to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein (although whether it was a second or a 20th or some number in between is debatable). I guess this year is the farce version of history.
It must be history repeating itself as farce. The Telegraph of London editorializes that ground troops should not be considered in the Libya War. Yet they admit that even more air attacks won't bring victory. But that's just fine with them:
There are other alternatives. One is greater and more effective use of the air power already authorised by Resolution 1973. The lack of a positive contribution from members of Nato other than Britain and France has seriously hampered the effectiveness of the air campaign. On its own, air power probably cannot defeat Gaddafi. But it could make his life much more difficult.
Right. It could make his life much more difficult. Well, then, saddle up and let's have a go at them!
One can almost hear the ringing speech in the House of Commons to set forth this bold vision of making life more difficult for Khaddafi in the present ordeal of the most grievous kind:
You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: difficulty; make Khaddafi's life much more difficult at all costs, make his life much more difficult in spite of all terror; make his life much more difficult, however long and hard the road may be; for without making his life much more difficult, there is no Nato.
So if NATO can get ten more fighters to bomb--and get the precision bombs from ... somewhere, NATO could expand the bombing campaign. But not for victory! Oh no, not that. But to make Khaddafi's life more difficult.
I think Khaddafi can live with that threat. With his oil wealth, his difficulties won't last for long. And as Saddam proved under greater difficulties in the decade after the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Khaddafi can make sure that only the little people suffer the difficulties that the West tries to impose on the rulers. And if any people resist him, well, he will shed their blood despite the threats of an impotent West flying above him waiting for the next shipment of smart bombs that already threadbare budgets will try to pay for to enforce whatever UN resolution we're up to by then.
Oh, God! What a charade!
