You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Africa North
Rebel troops retreat from Bin Jawad
2011-03-30
Troops loyal to Libyan leader Muammar Qadaffy
... a proud Arab institution for 42 years ...
have shelled pro-democracy forces heading west on the main coastal highway, pushing them out of Bin Jawad, a small town around 150 kilometres east of Sirte, Qadaffy's hometown.

Al Jizz's Hoda-Abdel Hamid, on the road leading east from Ras Lanuf reported that kabooms had also occured in that town, which opposition fighters had earlier retreated to from Bin Jawad.

"So certainly what we can say at this stage is that Bin Jawad is not any more in the hands of the rebels, actually the Qadaffy forces now are managing to pound Ras Lanuf and are getting closer and closer to them, pushing the opposition fighters eastwards more and more. I think this is an exact repeat of what happened about three weeks ago," she reported.

She said that pro-Qadaffy forces were mostly using mortars and artillery, as opposed to the tanks and Arclight airstrikes of early advances.

The reversal on Tuesday for Libya's nascent opposition came after their forces made a speedy, two-day advance from Ajdabiya.

Ajdabiya is a crossroads town that Qadaffy's troops had held for two weeks before an international military intervention allowed pro-democracy fighters to take it back.

On Monday, the pro-democracy forces moved as far west as Nawfaliya, another small town around 20 kilometres past Bin Jawad, before making a hasty evening retreat in the face of artillery fire from Qadaffy's troops.

Sirte didn't actually fall
A front man in the eastern opposition stronghold of Benghazi had announced earlier that day that Sirte itself had fallen, a rumour that turned out to be untrue.

The rebel retreat from Bin Jawad came as representatives from more than 40 countries gathered in London for a conference aimed at a post-Qadaffy political future for Libya.

But as diplomats met to discuss a Libya without Qadaffy, the man who has ruled the country for more than 41 years still seemed capable of holding onto power.

Most of the rebel forces in Bin Jawad were forced to flee on Tuesday under a barrage from Qadaffy's forces that included mortars and possibly rockets, Al Jizz's James Bays reported from the town.

Misrata under renewed attack
Opposition fighters in the western town of Misurata also said they came under renewed attack from pro-Qadaffy forces, with eight civilians killed, according to a front man.

Coalition air strikes that had proved so crucial in saving Benghazi from what many anticipated would be a massacre were nowhere to be seen during the rebels renewed push, and their' tactics do not appear to have improved since the first days of the fighting.

The main body of opposition fighters is still composed mostly of young and untrained men who are not used to carrying weapons or fighting in a war and do not take simple precautions to protect themselves, like digging defenses in the ground, our correspondent said.

"The plan seems to be for most of these youngsters to drive along the road and see how far they could get," he said. "Another weakness of this mainly volunteer army ... [is that] they really haven't protected their flanks. Basic military rules if you were dealing with a regular army are not being followed."

Obama justifies intervention
Hours before the rebel retreat from Bin Jawad, US president Barack B.O. Obama defended America's involvement in the military campaign in Libya in a televised address to his nation.

Speaking to military officers and news hounds at the National Defence University in Washington DC on Monday night, Obama said he refused to wait for images of the slaughter of civilians before taking action.

In blunt terms, Obama said the Western-led air campaign had stopped Qadaffy's advances and halted a slaughter that could have shaken the stability of an entire region and "stained the conscience of the entire world".

Political developments
"Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries," he said. "The United States of America is different."

But he said that broadening the international mission to include regime change would be a mistake.

"If we tried to overthrow Qadaffy by force, our coalition would splinter," he said.

The United States took the initial lead in the Western-led military action against Qadaffy before the recent NATO decision to take over the operations. Obama said the United States will transfer control to NATO on Wednesday.

Obama said once that transfer occurs, the risk and cost to American taxpayers will be reduced significantly.

But Al Jizz's Patty Culhane, reporting from Washington, said Obama's speech had two striking contradictions.

"The president said we must stand alongside those who work for freedom and at the same time he said we cannot be the coppers of the world only when it applies to our national interest," Culhane said.

"The president [seem to] be trying to explain why we have seen a lesser response to allies like Bahrain or Yemen."

Obama did not discuss plans for disengagement.
Posted by:Fred

#13  That is a good turn of phrase.
Posted by: JohnQC   2011-03-30 19:00  

#12  There's something satisfying about seeing arrogance meet with failure.

Word.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2011-03-30 18:49  

#11  Jeez, that picture makes Khdaffy Duck look like Mickey Rourke in the movie, 'The Wrestler'. And I do think that Khdaffy will outlast the 'rebels', simply because he has any number of actual ex-military employed as his mercs, who know how to fight as light infantry with mortar and artillery support. As opposed to the 'rebels', who seem to be proud graduates of the gun sex school of combat - emptying full 30 magazines into the empty sky, and grimacing threateningly, rather than bothering to aim at a target.
Posted by: Shieldwolf   2011-03-30 15:52  

#10  That was...
Robert A. Pape's Bombing To Win
PIMF...
Posted by: magpie   2011-03-30 15:11  

#9  They will see us either as chumps or crusaders no matter what we do. It's hard-wired into their culture.
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2011-03-30 15:07  

#8  Are people thinking that "Libya == Afghanistan" and that we can win a cheap, bloodless (our blood), (did I mention cheap already?) victory with air power alone. Perhaps, but unlikely...

Robert A. Pape's Bombing To Win covers the issue of actors that just can not be coerced with airpower. The Taliban could, and did!, run off to Pakistan to plot dire revenge. Qadaffy and company have no similar place to run to and threats of War Crimes Trials will only drive them further into a Bunker Mentality.
Posted by: magpie   2011-03-30 15:05  

#7  It's not that I'm rooting for Daffy. There's no getting around the fact that he is a very bad guy. But it seems that all those smart guys in Europe and NATO thought he'd be an easy mark and now they're finding out he's not so easy. There's something satisfying about seeing arrogance meet with failure. Arabs will not love us if American and/or European troops put their boots on the ground in Lybia. They will see us either as chumps or crusaders.
Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305   2011-03-30 12:12  

#6  Sounds like this could keep going back and forth for quite some time and Daffy is settling in for the long haul. Think about it: long after Bummer has run back to Chicago with his tail between his legs, Daffy could still be in Tripoli. Let's see, Daffy in Tripoli or Bummer in the White House...which is worse?
Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305   2011-03-30 11:48  

#5  pro-democracy fighters to take it back.

I do not think that word means what you think it means.But go ahead - pawn off your wishful thinking on us. Just remember to confess your sin when you can't keep up with the story any more.
Posted by: Bobby   2011-03-30 06:06  

#4  That pic is so subsaharan Africa.

Daffy clearly wants to the emperor of Wherethefuckisthatland.

The tradegy he ended up ruler of a place that actually matters. Not much, but enough to bring the AC130s and A10s down on him.
Posted by: phil_b   2011-03-30 04:13  

#3  Employing dismounts. He's catching on fast.

A fairly unsurprising development, IMHO. Unlike government or civic administration where you can pass a law or resolution and be done with a problem, war is a game where your opponent gets to make a move in response to whatever you just did (assuming he is still on the board).

If I was K-Duck, in addition to the dismounts, I would be running death squads and secret police to take the head and heart out of the rebel efforts. Hard to monitor that sort of behavior with AWACS.
Posted by: SteveS   2011-03-30 03:05  

#2  PEOPLE'S DAILY FORUM > LIBYAN REBELS SHOUT, "SARKOZY, WHERE ARE YOU"? Libyuhn Rebs demand more air strikes from France + NATO to offset Uncle Muammar's huge advantage in Arty firepower.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2011-03-30 02:54  

#1  She said that pro-Qadaffy forces were mostly using mortars and artillery, as opposed to the tanks and Arclight airstrikes of early advances.

Employing dismounts. He's catching on fast. It will soon be decision time for NATO. Boots on the ground... or no.

Posted by: Besoeker   2011-03-30 01:18  

00:00