This article describes the adaptation that should not have lulled anyone into thinking we could shock and awe are way to victory from the air:
NATO said nearly a third of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's heavy weapons have been destroyed. But the alliance said Gadhafi's forces had changed tactics in the besieged western city of Misrata by moving tanks and other heavy equipment to civilian areas to prevent pilots from targeting them.
A doctor in Misrata corroborated that, saying Gadhafi's forces have been placing heavy weapons near civilians there for the past two weeks.
"They snuck their anti-aircraft weapons and tanks into the city. They are between the apartment buildings and the trees," said the doctor, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals. "They disguise their equipment on the big agricultural trucks that the farmers use outside of town. They bring in mortars with civilian cars."
I predicted this (and it took little skill to do so).
Further, despite the loss of 30% of their heavy equipment to our air attacks, the loyalists still fight. What remains may be enough. Remember, there aren't that many loyalists in combat against a smaller number of rebels. So the loyalists may even be able to replace all their material losses for a long time with existing stocks of weapons. Libya started the war with over 2,000 tanks, over 1,000 infantry fighting vehicles, nearly a thousand armored personnel carriers, and nearly 2500 artillery pieces (tube and rocket). Yes, a lot were inoperable and in storage, but money to buy spare parts and technicians is surely plentiful. And as I said, just how many of these systems do the loyalists need to overmatch the rebels? And using civilian vehicles plentiful in a rich country stretches resources.
What's our move now? Doe we even have a next move? Or have we given up on victory? Do we accept we didn't shock Khaddafi's loyalists into collapsing, admit we can't win, and go home?
UPDATE: Austin Bay on loyalist adaptation. He notes that the use of human shields is a war crime. So what? Like this finally puts Khaddafi's regime over the line into criminality? If I was Khaddafi, I'd be using human shields because it is effective against our rules of engagement. Adding in this crime to the list regime officials could be tried for would be bouncing the rubble, so to speak. In for a penny, in for a pound. Loyalist hopes for surviving this war rely on winning it, not trying to rehabilitate themselves for past crimes during the current fighting.
Bay also says that Khaddafi used his air force to attack cities held by rebels. I'd love to see an administration defense of the humanitarian justification for the war that tallies this up. I don't remember many news stories about specific attacks on civilian areas (as opposed to stories that as a generality said this is what he did). I could be wrong, of course. Just because I don't recall such stories--even though I was keeping an eye out for them--doesn't mean they weren't written. And even if stories weren't written mean that attacks on civilians didn't happen, of course.
