Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, head of the opposition's interim governing council based in Benghazi, spoke during a joint press conference with U.N. envoy Abdelilah Al-Khatib. Al-Khatib is visiting the rebels' de-facto stronghold of Benghazi in hopes of reaching a political solution to the crisis embroiling the North African nation.
Abdul-Jalil said the rebels' condition for a cease fire is "that the Gadhafi brigades and forces withdraw from inside and outside Libyan cities to give freedom to the Libyan people to choose and the world will see that they will choose freedom."
I wouldn't have minded this if we hadn't made Khaddafi's departure our goal. Then we could have supported the rebels semi-covertly in the east even if it was a long civil war. In the end both sides would have ramped up oil exports to finance their own entities, so that problem wouldn't exist. And refugees likely wouldn't flow north to Europe. But now, because we said Khaddafi must go, a Khaddafi left in power despite our order, with oil, and who knows we are his enemy will probably become a junior member of the Axis of Evil and seek to become a thorn in our side as payback.
Of course, right now the rebel ceasefire conditions are a non-starter. Khaddafi won't agree unless he sees a loophole. But the idea is broached that eliminating the hated Khaddafi isn't the only objective of the rebellion. That's surely a wise thought, since I don't think the coalition will remain around long enough to beat the loyalists--and the rebels could be on the receiving end of 1973 enforcement. But you never know. If the psychological pressure of the Western air campaign starts getting to loyalist rulers and troop commanders and some start to defect, it could start snowballing and lead to quick collapse. I hope President Obama is that lucky. It would help to keep the pressure on if American officials wouldn't repeat on a daily basis that regime change is not our goal.
A ceasefire wouldn't be the best option for us since it will create a Khaddafi problem child to be dealt with later (well, not "create" as much as "accelerate" given his trajectory--call it "confirm"), but it would deliver the Obama administration from the contradictions inherent in this war by committee that does not agree on what we are fighting to achieve. And the UN would call it a success because the visible images of civilians dying in rebel cities were prevented.
Still, it would suck to be on the wrong side of the ceasefire line. Dying quietly is still dying--even if it doesn't make the evening news and inspire UN or Western action.
UPDATE: What it will be like to be on the wrong side of the ceasefire line, as two journalists and their driver discovered when they thought they might disappear:
I looked at the students, whom the soldiers had referred to as "dogs."
"Why do you think you were picked up?" I asked.
"We were just driving and they arrested us," whispered one. "You see what Gaddafi does to his people?" another said.
A few minutes later, another new batch of detainees was hauled in. A militiaman demanded: "Who are the dogs? You will see what we will do to you. Get the blindfolds."
It was a time to reflect on how Libyans have lived in fear, day in and day out, during Gaddafi's 41-year rule. This was the type of treatment any critic of Gaddafi might face, a kind of treatment common across many of the states of the Arab world.
In an instant, people can simply disappear into an abyss.
Will it really be mission accomplished if Khaddafi still stands in western Libya?
