At this point NATO is just using Gaddafi to discipline the rebels.
For a month UN/NATO gave Gaddafi absolute freedom to apply maximum violence to suppress the rebels. Meanwhile they kept buying his oil and if he had been successful all would have been forgiven and they would have kept buying the oil from him.
They made overtures to the rebels and those overtures were rejected. They landed British SAS forces in a rebel area and the rebels arrested them. That probably delayed NATO air strikes by more than a week.
Most of all NATO wants oil from Libya and they can get that from Gaddafi or the rebels but they can't get that without stability. NATO did not act until they had determined Gaddafi would not prevail quickly. His promise to do to Benhgazi what he had just done to Ajdabiya, saying "Libya will clean house to house if the protesters do not surrender", meant that as many as a hundred thousand civilians could have been slaughtered and that whole oil producing area would be in great turmoil for a long time. So they finally acted.
Once NATO started bombing they had already determined that Gaddafi must go and they have every intention of removing him. But they still have not received the concessions they want from the rebels. That's why they have backed off. That is why they have been slow to resumed air strikes to stop Gaddafi's murderous bombardment of Misratah. They are using Gaddafi to discipline the rebels in an attempt to force them to beg for NATO's support on NATO's terms.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer
Gaddafi's offer of amnesty was worthless.
Given the number of times he claimed a ceasefire to the media while never letting up on the artillery strikes on the ground. Also you have to consider his use of snipers as terror weapons against protesters and what he considered dissent communities, and his use of 'yellow hat' mercenaries in the Benhgazi area long before the protesters ever took up arms. Which they captured from Gaddafi's forces or got from the part of the army that came over to the revolution.
I trace the beginning of the current struggle in Libya to the housing takeovers in the middle of January. If you have anything more than hot air to back up your false claim that,
I'd seriously like to hear about it. Please post the links or the proof or shut up with your slanderous changes against brave people who are fighting and dying the overthrow a dictator that has been armed by the US. and UK.
This week Gaddafi has been mercilessly pounding Misrata with artillery and killing many civilians. Is that what you mean by 'debacle?'
I'm sure you will agree that civilian have the right to self-defense. The problem is as soon as they act to defend themselves they cease to be civilians. That's not 'orwellian', that's Catch 22.
You are merely using the phrase 'orwellian' here to strip 'protesters' of their right to go over to armed struggle once their peaceful protests are met with massive state violence as they were in Gaddafi's Libya.
The small subset of the
The small subset of the Libyan people who pick up an AK47 and rpg can go over to the armed struggle if they wish - they just shouldn't expect us to go down raining death from the skies on the Libyan army when their uprising turns out to lack significant nation-wide support.
As far as I can determine it appears the Libyan army did try to implement a ceasefire outside Benghazi, but because the insurgents cause is hopeless without NATO support the insurgents launched provocation attacks on the army's forward positions. As we have learnt since the insurgents can't hold off a Libyan attack, sometimes even with NATO air support, so the idea the Libyan army attacked Benghazi and was beaten off by the "civilian protesters" is absurd. The fact is you can't implement a one-sided ceasefire, so there will be no ceasefire until the insurgents are seriously interested in one, and they won't be interested in one while they have a multi-billion air fleet launching billions of dollars of munitions on their side.
I have no quarrel with the Libyan people and I no desire to incite, inflame or pick sides in their civil war - a civil war that probably wouldn't have happened if MI6 hadn't been continually enticing people in the Government to defect - beginning with the Justice and Interior Minister in February and the Foreign Minister more recently.
Seriously, a grass roots, popular uprising led by the Interior Minister and commander of the special forces? You "elite hackers" (chortle) need your collective heads read.
Where's the proof?
I asked you for proof. You provide no proof. I ask you for links. You provide no links. Instead we get "as near as I can tell" and then you go on to put out Gaddafi's propaganda.
Gaddafi's forces closed on Benhgazi even after he announced the cease fire which was unilateral, the rebels didn't want a crease fire on the first day of NATO support and Gaddafi didn't want one the day before when he was still promising to go "house to house" in Benhgazi.
Here's my links on this cease fire question.
Benghazi celebrates no-fly zone, but distrusts Gaddafi's ceasefire
Gaddafi Defies Ceasefire As Forces Attack Rebel Stronghold Of Benghazi
Gadhafi forces attack rebel stronghold Benghazi despite ceasefire pledge
Gaddafi army tells Benghazi people to lay down arms
Gaddafi Ignores Obama Threat, Attacks Benghazi