Libyan Rebels Enter Bani Walid in Final Push

At Telegraph UK.

The Battle for Sirte

At Telegraph UK, "Libya: Over 800 killed in battle for Gaddafi's home town of Sirte."

Libya's transitional leaders believe hundreds of their supporters have been gunned down in Colonel Gaddafi's home town of Sirte by desperate regime loyalists, even as they try to negotiate its surrender.



The town is Gaddafi's biggest remaining Libya stronghold and rebel commanders know his forces are dug in for a bloody battle.



For now opposition forces have held their positions to the east and west as they wait for tribal elders to negotiate with Gaddafi fighters.



But Shamsiddin Ben-Ali, a spokesman in the rebel city of Benghazi, said 800 people had been killed in the past three days.



"Many of the people of Sirte are on our side now and want to be part of the revolution," he said. "The people with guns though are still resisting."



The death toll raises a bloody conundrum for the country's new leaders: rushing in could spell a military disaster but waiting is costing a very high price in civilian casualties.

Also at Telegraph, "Libya: rebels prepare to seize Bani Walid."

Just War Theory

A cool discussion, with Michael Walzer:

RELATED: At Dissent, from 2006, "Regime Change and Just War," by Michael Walzer. And the response, which destroys Walzer's argument, from Jean Bethke Elshtain: "Jean Bethke Elshtain Responds."



And more Walzer, more recently, at New Republic, "The Case Against Our Attack on Libya."

To the Shores of Tripoli

From Robert Kagan, at Weekly Standard:

... the end of Qaddafi’s rule is a great accomplishment for the Obama administration and for the president personally. It is a shame that some administration officials are trying to downplay the role of the United States in this whole affair, absurdly trying to turn the “leading from behind” gaffe into a kind of Obama doctrine. In fact, the United States was not “leading from behind.” By far the most important decision taken by any world leader in this entire episode—the decision that made all the difference—was President Obama’s decision that the United States and the world could not stand by and see the people of Ben ghazi massacred.



That American choice was the turning point. All praise to France’s Nicolas Sarkozy and Britain’s David Cameron for being ahead of the president in seeing the need for armed action—just as Margaret Thatcher was ahead of George H.W. Bush in seeing the need for action against Saddam Hussein in 1990. But here is the plain and critical truth of the matter: None of this could have been done without the United States leading the way.



Only the United States has the military capacity, the weaponry, the surveillance technology, and the skill to open a safe path for the air and ground war against Qaddafi’s forces. France and Britain alone would not and probably could not have done the job without unacceptable risk to their forces, which were very thin to begin with. In the early days, especially, American A-10 and AC-130 ground attack aircraft were critical in pummeling Qaddafi’s armored vehicles and forcing them to halt offensives against rebel positions. In the last days of the conflict, American high-tech surveillance allowed the rebels to pinpoint the positions of Qaddafi forces in and around Tripoli. Throughout months of fighting, prowling American Predator drones forced Qaddafi and his men to keep their heads down.



The president and his secretary of state also carried out an adept diplomacy that eventually garnered not only European but, remarkably, Arab support as well. This in turn forced both Russia and China—fearful of Arab wrath—to acquiesce. There were costs, of course: a U.N. resolution inadequate to the task at hand and the usual problem of trying to keep many players on board during a mission. On balance, however, it was worth it. The administration was surely right that the intervention would be more effective if it did not appear to be exclusively an American operation and that the combination of European and Arab support for removing Qaddafi was enough of a prize to warrant some compromises.



But the larger point is that, again, only the United States could have pulled all these disparate political and regional forces together. No other nation, not France, not Great Britain, not even a united EU (which German opposition prevented) could have managed this global diplomatic task. In this allegedly “post-American” world, the United States remains both indispensable and irreplaceable.

That's a dramatically different take than Max Boot's, "Did Libya Vindicate 'Leading From Behind'?" Boot doesn't love America's reserve role in these interventions, especially since success requires American military power to begin with. Why shrug off our leadership role and argue "we've got your back"? Kagan just calls it an American victory no matter how you slice it. But all along I've found Victor Davis Hanson's arguments to be the most compelling, which hold, for example, that the Obama administration hadn't the slightest clue about toppling Gaddafi, as evidenced by the administration's pathetic flip-flopping on the goal of regime change or not.



In any case, Kagan and Boot agree on one thing: The war's not over yet.

Libya War Not Yet Over

Well, I need to start watching MSNBC more often. I just love Reva Bhalla, Director of Analysis at STRATFOR:

And at Telegraph UK, "Gaddafi releases new audio message," and "Gaddafi vows to 'let Libya burn' as he defies calls for surrender."



Plus, "Libya: rebels prepare to seize Bani Walid."

'Join the Rejects'

This story about UCLA student Chris Jeon joining the rebel insurgency in Libya reminded me of the Cockney Rejects: "Join the Rejects rebels and get yourself killed":

Also at Washington Post, "American student Chris Jeon joins Libyan rebels."

Did Libya Vindicate 'Leading From Behind'?

Max Boot gives Obama the boot on Libya, at WSJ and RCP. Boot's normally pretty gung ho on foreign military intervention, so I'm sensing a little disappointment overall. That is, more forward deployed U.S. power earlier in Libya would have not only shortened the war, but made for a stronger precedent in future crises. See Boot's earlier piece, "It's Not Too Late to Save Libya."

Libyan National Transitional Council

That's the first I've seen of that term, at the description from this video at Telegraph UK:

Also, "Libya: Saif al-Islam Gaddafi vows to continue the war and retake Tripoli."



See also New York Times, "Son Denies Rebels’ Claim That Qaddafi Is Cornered":

TRIPOLI, Libya — A top official of Libya’s transitional government said Wednesday that its fighters had cornered Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi in a desert redoubt 150 miles from the capital and were exhorting him to give up, in what would bring a sense of finality to the prolonged uprising that routed him and his family from Tripoli a week ago.



But one of Colonel Qaddafi’s fugitive sons, Seif al-Islam el-Qaddafi, threw a new if improbable taunt at the rebels even as they said they had closed in on his father, vowing in an audio statement that loyalists would never surrender and insisting that “victory will be near.”



“Our leadership is fine,” he said in the statement broadcast on the Al Rai television channel of Syria and other Arab broadcasting outlets. “We are drinking tea and coffee.”



Seif al-Islam gave no indication in the statement of his precise whereabouts except that he was in a Tripoli suburb, and it was not clear if his remarks had been prerecorded. But the statement itself raised the possibility of more fighting and underscored the ability of the Qaddafis to frustrate the alliance of rebel forces that has become the effective government of Libya.

Maybe folks should hold off on this talk of a "transitional council." You gotta get that old council out before you can transition a new one.

Gaddafi Family Members in Algeria

At Los Angeles Times, "Members of Kadafi family flee to Algeria":

Members of Moammar Kadafi's family, including his wife, daughter and two of his sons, have fled to Algeria, the government of the neighboring country said Monday.



Algerian state television reported that Kadafi relatives who arrived Monday through a border crossing included the deposed Libyan leader's wife, Safiya, his daughter, Aisha, and two of his sons, Hannibal and Mohammed. The group also included an undisclosed number of Kadafi's grandchildren, Algeria said.



The Algerian government said it had informed both the United Nations and the Libyan rebels' Transitional National Council that the group had arrived.



But there was no answer to a much bigger question: Where was Moammar Kadafi himself?

Also at NYT, "Qaddafi’s Wife and 3 of His Children Flee to Algeria."

Libya Vindicates Obama? And Humanitarian Intervention?

I don't think the administration had a clue, but President Obama will get a lot of credit for toppling Gaddafi.



And this will generate a big debate among specialists in international relations. See Anne Marie Slaughter's piece, at Financial Times, "Why Libya sceptics were proved badly wrong":

Let us do a thought experiment. Imagine the UN did not vote to authorise the use of force in Libya in March. Nato did nothing; Colonel Muammer Gaddafi over-ran Benghazi; the US stood by; the Libyan opposition was reduced to sporadic uprisings, quickly crushed. The regimes in Yemen and Syria took note, and put down their own uprisings with greater vigour. The west let brutality and oppression triumph again in the Middle East.



This is the scenario many wise heads were effectively arguing for with their strong stands against intervention to stop Col Gaddafi. Over the months those analysts have reminded us of their views, calling Libya a quagmire. This week one of the leading proponents of that position, my friend and colleague Richard Haass, shifted gears – but only to remind us just how hard the road ahead in Libya is likely to be.



I do not know anyone, regardless of the side they took in the initial debate, who thinks this task will be easy; indeed, the battle against Col Gaddafi is not yet won. But not so fast. Before we focus on what must happen next, let us pause for a minute and reflect on that initial debate and the lessons to be learnt.

Keep reading.



Dr. Slaugther omits mention that Islamists could come to power in Libya, which in the end might not be much better than having Gaddafi. True, Muammar is about as bad as they come, and as I said all along in the case of Mubarak's Egypt, there's little satisfaction in standing up for a dictator. But the euphoria of the Arab Spring has long evaporated and a real security dilemma is emerging in the region that's forcing folks to reckon with change. Israel, of course, comes to mind, but a larger systemic transformation toward more widespread Islamism won't be good. It's already bad enough as it is.



More on this at Foreign Affairs, from Stewart Patrick, "Libya and the Future of Humanitarian Intervention: How Qaddafi's Fall Vindicated Obama and RtoP."

German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle Steps in it With Comments on NATO Bombing in Libya

What's most interesting is that this is Germany, where the use of military force has been contentious throughout the post-WWII era. See WSJ, "German Foreign Minister Takes Hit for Libya Stance."



Westerwelle is a leader for the Free Democratic Party, a center-right party most famous for having Hans-Dietrich Genscher serve as foreign minister during the crucial years at the end of the Cold War. But the FDP is internationalist and has a reputation of angering Israel back in the day (the Munich Olympics in 1972). But again, I'm just fascinated by the debate on the deployment of German military force. It's an amazing thing that after 65 years German military power is far from normalized. It's true of Europe generally, that the continent tends to rely on the U.S. for major military operations, but these things don't last forever. And Germany's the one strong economy in a sea of Euro-gloom. Maybe folks ought to step up a bit over there and provide some leadership in foreign policy. This is pretty ridiculous.

Rebels Bust Gaddafi's Bunker

A huge report at London's Daily Mail, "Missed him by minutes: How rebels and special forces came close to snaring Gaddafi." Also at Telegraph UK, "Libya: rebels surround apartment block 'hiding' Col Gaddafi."



Plus, at LAT, "Eww! Moammar Kadafi (hearts) Condoleezza Rice." And Memeorandum.

Libya Could Be Unstable For a Long Time

Lively discussion from Jeremy Scahill, on Morning Joe.

China Backs Libya Rebels

Just now they're backing the rebels?



At Reuters, "China turns to Libya rebels, urges "stable transition'."

China urged a "stable transition of power" in Libya and said on Wednesday it is in contact with the rebel National Transitional Council, the clearest sign yet that Beijing has effectively shifted recognition to forces poised to defeat Muammar Gaddafi.

Obama Vindicated on Libya?

An "In the Arenda" debate, at Politico.



Here's Soren Dayton:

I think that the whole "lead from behind" argument on Libya is a bit of a red herring. The U.S., along with allies and a UN resolution, enforced a no-fly zone. Clearly, getting rid of Qadhafi was the right thing to do. However, the process left quite a lot to be desired. There is already talk of much less support for the next UN resolution because the military activities went well beyond the scope of the UN resolution. It will be much harder to get the next resolution.



At the same time domestically, Obama clearly violated the War Powers Act, something he claimed earlier to hold dear. He showed himself a hypocrite while aligning much of the GOP against the intervention. However, Congress showed its utter incompetence in not claiming some degree of authority over the situation.

Actually, I like John Yoo's take on the war, although I wasn't so gung ho on it myself. See, "We Don't Need U.N. Approval to Save Libyan Lives." But also from Smitty at TOM, "Who Should Be Embarrassed, Mr. Yoo?"

Libya's Limitless Potential, for Good or Evil

From Victor Davis Hanson, at National Review:

The U.S. is in no mood to follow up our military intervention with a postbellum reconstruction program, and we have no idea which factions among the rebels will assume power, or even the nature of the various special interests. So, until the dust settles, no one quite knows whether this is 1917 Russia, 1979 Iran, 2003 Iraq, or 2011 Egypt and Tunisia, or a little of everything.

But RTWT.

Journalists 'Captive' at Rixos Hotel in Tripoli

A live blog at Telegraph UK, "Libya live: British journalists 'captive' in Tripoli hotel."

Rebels Prepare for Libya Transition

At WaPo, "Libyan opposition leaders prepare for transition":

BENGHAZI, Libya — With rebel fighters celebrating in the streets of Tripoli on Tuesday, opposition leaders in this eastern Libyan city now face tough questions about how they will guide the country through what is expected to be a tumultuous transition.



Some observers have begun to question whether the rebels — ostensibly led by the Benghazi-based Transitional National Council — are up to the task of restarting a failed economy after six months of war, restoring peace, and assuring Libyans and foreign benefactors that they are capable of leading the country.



The rebels have been plagued by infighting almost from the moment they first rose to challenge Col. Moammar Gaddafi, and the friction has not subsided despite celebrations on Tuesday as rebel fighters stormed the leader’s compound in Tripoli.



The top rebel commander was assassinated last month in a case that remains unsolved, but that has spurred furious accusations among various rebel factions. When an investigation of the killing bogged down, rebel council chief Mustafa Abdul Jalil dismissed his cabinet.



Concerns about the rebel leadership deepened on Tuesday after Gaddafi’s most influential son, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, appeared in public despite rebel claims that he had been captured.



“The Transitional National Council is not without its problems,” said Geoff Porter, an analyst with North Africa Risk Consulting. “Its decision-making process is unpredictable and far from transparent. . . .This suggests that future dealings with the council are going to be prickly, challenging and uneven.”

That doesn't sound so hot. More at that top link.



Also at LAT, "Kadafi vows victory or 'martyrdom' in Libyan uprising," and NYT, "Qaddafi Defiant After Rebel Takeover." But see Chicago Tribune, "Rebels overrun Gaddafi HQ, say he's 'finished'."

Libya: Key Role Played by Britain in Fall of Tripoli

Beats sharing an aircraft carrier with other mid-ranking powers, I guess.

At Telegraph UK:

The key role played by Britain in equipping and advising Libya’s rebel fighters for their final push on Tripoli was becoming clear last night as Col Muammar Gaddafi’s remaining forces staged a last stand around his bunker.



For weeks, military and intelligence officers have been helping the rebels plan their co-ordinated attack on the capital, and Whitehall sources have disclosed that the RAF stepped up raids on Tripoli on Saturday morning in a pre-arranged plan to pave the way for the rebel advance.



MI6 officers based in the rebel stronghold of Benghazi had honed battle plans drawn up by Libya’s Transitional National Council (TNC) which were agreed 10 weeks ago.

The constantly-updated tactical advice provided by British experts to the rebel leaders centred on the need to spark a fresh uprising within Tripoli that could be used as the cue for fighters to advance on the city.



But when it finally came, the speed with which it achieved its goal took everyone, including the rebels, by surprise.

Pretty cool.



Keep reading.



RELATED: At Legal Insurrection, "Uh oh, Saif al-Islam free and talking."

Ezra Levant on the Situation in Libya

At Blazing Cat Fur, "Moammar Gadhafi - Still Not Dead":