Civil War in Libya

[Prince Cobra]

Have Gaddafi's foreces retaken az-Zawiya? I'm getting conflicting reports here.

What I read today was that he tried but failed last night. But I suspect his office denies that,

[Goofball]

I'm fascinated by the assertion that "we are their democratic tradition". Could you expand on the thesis?

Whereas there are some common threads in Western democracies, each is a product of the individual country's history and culture. Even quite closely related cultures such as the UK and the USA have significantly different democracies and traditions.

The internet is merely a form of communication - it does not surmount cultural biases (any review of the Backroom demonstrates that). I would also note that Western democracies are in a state of (perhaps terminal) decline in the face of corporate power expressed through narrowing oligarchies. None of this is a model - in my opinion - for emerging popular movements in nations which have, for too long, been reliant on autocratic central powers rather than the citizenry and its expressed will.

LEN is entirely right - we have no right to attempt an "export" of our flawed version of democracy to cultures that have entirely different histories and economic conditions. That will not stop the Western powers trying to influence and meddle, because we have too much of our own economies tied up in the region (not to mention the thorny problems of Israel's security and how we view any "will of the people" that installs an Islamic theocracy).

Correct, we have no right to export our own political dogma. But don't you think that at some point we have an obligation to step in and prevent a madman from slaughtering civilians?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Correct, we have no right to export our own political dogma. But don't you think that at some point we have an obligation to step in and prevent a madman from slaughtering civilians?

But that is exporting our own political dogma.


Who are we to decide that there should not be an authoritarian leader who can use force to protect the interests of himself and his class? To interfere in this would be to spread demcracy and human rights as understood by the West.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Also, nice crossover wuith the Charlie Sheen thread:

Charlie Sheen v Muammar Gaddafi: whose line is it anyway?

The US actor and the Libyan leader have produced some choice lines recently. Can you distinguish between them?



Quiztime!

Such awesomeness: 'I have defeated this earthworm with my words – imagine what I would have done with my fire-breathing fists'. But is it Gaddafi or Sheen?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Correct, we have no right to export our own political dogma. But don't you think that at some point we have an obligation to step in and prevent a madman from slaughtering civilians?

No, I don't - unless we consider it a principled obligation and apply it equally whenever there are significant breaches of human rights. Therefore, when we gear up to invade China to protect their civilians, we can add Libya to the list.

[PanzerJaeger]

Nice to see you around, Goof.



Anyway, Gaddafi forces are making gains against the dissidents, who are struggling to master the heavy weaponry that they have wrested from the government.

Forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, are reported to have regained control of two strategic towns in the country's northwest, even as opposition fighters in the east prepare to march on the capital, Tripoli.

The claims about the fall of Gharyan and Sabratha on Wednesday came as clashes were taking place in the eastern town of Brega, the headquarters of several oil companies.

A journalist from the nearby city of Ajdabiya confirmed to Al Jazeera that Brega was attacked by pro-Gaddafi forces, saying that about 100 cars carrying foreign fighters carried out the assault.

Earlier government forces were reported to be battling to regain control of rebel-held towns close to Tripoli, trying to create a buffer zone around what is still Gaddafi's seat of power.

Jackie Rowland, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Libya's second largest city, Benghazi, said that aircraft loyal to Gaddafi reportedly carried out a bombing raid against a weapons store about six kilometres outside Ajdabiya.

And in the West, the major powers seem to be distancing themselves from some of their earlier enthusiastic offers of support.

Britain has backtracked from its belligerent military stance over Libya after the Obama administration publicly distanced itself from David Cameron's suggestion that Nato should establish a no-fly zone over the country and that rebel forces should be armed.

As senior British military sources expressed concern that Downing Street appeared to be overlooking the dangers of being sucked into a long and potentially dangerous operation, the prime minister said Britain would go no further than contacting the rebel forces at this stage.

The marked change of tone by the prime minister, who told MPs on Monday that Britain did not "in any way rule out the use of military assets", came as the British-educated son of Muammar Gaddafi mocked Cameron for trying to act as a hero. Saif al-Islam told Sky News: "Everybody wants to be a hero, to be important in history."

[Banquo's Ghost]

And in the West, the major powers seem to be distancing themselves from some of their earlier enthusiastic offers of support.

I wouldn't go so far as claiming the United Kingdom is a "major power". Cameron might have an aircraft carrier available in five or so years, but it won't have any aircraft and anyway he's fired all the pilots. Oh, and most of the troops currently fighting in Afghanistan are being issued redundancy notices right now, so even if they feel motivated to carry on risking their lives in their current theatre, they'll be swelling the dole queues rather than fighting tyrants.

Still, the Prime Minister does offer a foreign policy of sorts (with five days notice) built around selling what arms he does have to Arab dictators. Not sure that helps here.

[Louis VI the Fat]

No, I don't - unless we consider it a principled obligation and apply it equally whenever there are significant breaches of human rights. Therefore, when we gear up to invade China to protect their civilians, we can add Libya to the list.

Well we can't invade China because we'll lose.

But it are practical considerations such as that that indeed mark the limit I would put on humanitarian intervention. Otherwise, as far as I'm concerned, we spread democracy as a matter of course. And we violently overthrow tyranny wherever there is a reasonable alternative, or whenever a situation is intolerable.
One can oust Gadaffi if the situation became desperate, although the better scenario is to leave it to market forces. He who, and that which, emerges victorious in Libya can subsequently reasonably be assumed to have a workable power base, for he wouldn't have won elsewise.



I blame Iraq for destroying the appetite for humanitarian intervention. And Kosovo. In the former a US administration hijacked and made a mockery of the wish to do good and to make sacrifices to spread democracy, sadly, right in America, the one country that is not completely cynical about these things. The latter was a case of aiding one evil against another. Not an unmitigated disaster, for both warring parties were separated, but still best to think about while holding one's nose.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Still, the Prime Minister does offer a foreign policy of sorts

At least that's more than can be said of the bunch of clowns in the Quay d'Orsay.

First Sarkozy and Alliot-Marie supported Ben Ali to the last. They never saw his fall coming. To damage control the lost prestige in the Arab world, Alliot-Marie was removed as foreign minister. Then Libya burns. Not willing to make the same mistake again, Sarkozy goes public and demands that Gadaffi steps down. This was five minutes before it became clear that Gadaffi is not going to lose this.

That's what you get when you don't listen to your diplomats. French diplomacy - the second largest in the world - is getting desperate, getting fed up. None of the French cables are apparantly read, none of the analyses are studied. What's the point of paying a million people to study foreign developments when it is not going to be put to any use? There are dozens of analysts and experts and people living abroad who report about the situation in Libya, employed in all sorts of different functions, from embassies to think tanks to universities.

Gah! Clinton got both Egypt and Libya exactly right. I bet she had the Americans simply intercept French diplomatic cables and have them translated. The roles have been reversed from a decade ago. This time, it is America that is exactly on the money every single time, and France which is clueless about developments in the Middle East.

[Ronin]

Otherwise, as far as I'm concerned, we spread democracy defend out interests as a matter of course.

there...fixed it for you.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Well we can't invade China because we'll lose.

Precisely. So inevitably, foreign interventions are not based on ethics but on practicality. To me, the practicality is no intervention at all.

But it are practical considerations such as that that indeed mark the limit I would put on humanitarian intervention. Otherwise, as far as I'm concerned, we spread democracy as a matter of course. And we violently overthrow tyranny wherever there is a reasonable alternative, or whenever a situation is intolerable.
One can oust Gadaffi if the situation became desperate, although the better scenario is to leave it to market forces. He who, and that which, emerges victorious in Libya can subsequently reasonably be assumed to have a workable power base, for he wouldn't have won elsewise.

One cannot assume anything of the sort - the "victor" may be nothing of the sort a few days or months later. Tunisian secret police are already rounding people up in that "liberated" country. You of all people will be aware of how revolutions can turn out. In the end, all may be well, but that is up to the people who suffer through the change, not any external agency whose suffering is always likely to be minimal in comparison.

But to go back to the first point - surely your argument is "we violently overthrow tyranny wherever there is a reasonable alternative, or whenever a situation is intolerable, subject to the caveat that the tyranny hasn't got big guns, nukes or pointed sticks, lords over a sufficiently small population that we can be absolutely sure won't turn on us next, isn't supplying us with gas/oil/dried fruit on favourable terms, isn't sub-Saharan Africa, isn't in possession of a topography with mountains, jungles or Bradford, and with the proviso that 'intolerable' is a moveable feast if the aforesaid tyrant spends his money in Harrods."

I blame Iraq for destroying the appetite for humanitarian intervention. And Kosovo. In the former a US administration hijacked and made a mockery of the wish to do good and to make sacrifices to spread democracy, sadly, right in America, the one country that is not completely cynical about these things. The latter was a case of aiding one evil against another. Not an unmitigated disaster, for both warring parties were separated, but still best to think about while holding one's nose.

Humanitarian intervention was a lie before either of those two disasters, but they do graphically illustrate why such measures invariably go horribly wrong, usually at the expense of a lot of local people who are volunteered for martyrdom in the names of our "principles" and invariably with political consequences in the country so liberated that no-one could foresee.

Perhaps you are a devotee of the "Rumsfeld Arrangement" - ie the population will be so grateful for our intervention they will immediately strew our path with rose petals and the world will be in harmony as one?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Precisely. So inevitably, foreign interventions are not based on ethics but on practicality. To me, the practicality is no intervention at all.

But to go back to the first point - surely your argument is "we violently overthrow tyranny wherever there is a reasonable alternative, or whenever a situation is intolerable, subject to the caveat that the tyranny hasn't got big guns, nukes or pointed sticks, lords over a sufficiently small population that we can be absolutely sure won't turn on us next, isn't supplying us with gas/oil/dried fruit on favourable terms, isn't sub-Saharan Africa, isn't in possession of a topography with mountains, jungles or Bradford, and with the proviso that 'intolerable' is a moveable feast if the aforesaid tyrant spends his money in Harrods."

Gah! Multiple quotes with multiple answers quickly become unreadable to third parties. Just to set an example and to satisfy my need to be insufferably smug at least once a day, I shall take your two quotes and reply to them with one single, uninterrupted answer, to show how it is done:

You give an excellent - so sad it becomes humorous - description of our humanitarian policy. However, I was not making a descriptive, but a normative statement. As far as I'm concerned, we spread democracy to an extent limited by practicalities. Practicalities dictate we must follow the politics of the possible. The politicies themselves, however, must be based on the politics of the impossible. Imagination must rule the world. The Anglo mind can satisfy itself by conducting foreign policy as if it were a commercial venture. Others have a higher vocation in the world, must strive to liberate the entire universe. They look at the mausoleum of their forefathers, and this leaves them no choice. Such are the traditions and responsibilities of the third estate.

Perhaps you are a devotee of the "Rumsfeld Arrangement" - ie the population will be so grateful for our intervention they will immediately strew our path with rose petals and the world will be in harmony as one?

As the careful observer will note, I immediately disregard that bit about not mulitple quoting others, thereby showing it was indeed just about me indulging my scandalously conceited nature. It can not be helped. On then, to actual answer:

The obvious reply to your cynicism is: you mean, as in August of 1944? There were indeed throngs of people offering rose petals, wine and women to the Free French forces which liberated France, and also for the Americans and British who accompanied them.

[PanzerJaeger]

Pro-Gaddafi forces appear to launch a probing attack and are met with inneffectual defenses.

As the Libyan leader vowed in a speech in Tripoli to "fight until the last man and woman", his forces advanced on rebel-held strongholds to the east for the first time since the civilian-led uprising started a fortnight ago. Fighter jets launched air strikes on the towns of Brega and Ajdabiya, giving support to ground forces as they pounded rebel positions with heavy artillery fire.

Facing the onslaught it has long feared, the rebel leadership in the second city of Benghazi, just 100 miles north of Ajdabiya, appealed for international military intervention for the first time. On sand dunes along the desert coast scores of untrained and poorly equipped volunteers loyal to the rebel cause struggled to hold at bay the vast superior forces ranged against them. Theirs seemed a hopeless cause. Yet, even as the blood of their fallen comrades stained the desert sand, the rebels held their line and, remarkably, even appeared to push Col Gaddafi's forces back.

The battle took its toll; an open-top lorry darted forward amid falling shells to cart the dead back. Ambulances, braving the onslaught, ferried the wounded to nearby hospitals. The Daily Telegraph counted four dead, but doctors and witnesses said there were several other casualties.

Ajdabiya's inhabitants had been arming themselves with what they could. Some had guns but others came with machetes, axes, hammers, and in one instance a barbecue skewer. "We have come here to defend Ajdabiya," said Mohamed Abdrurrazeg, who grew up in Swansea. "It doesn't matter that I don't have a gun, because some of my friends do. I will just stand here with my people and die with my people."

For over a week the people of eastern Libya had been waiting for Col Gaddafi's inevitable counter-attack after they had died in their hundreds liberating their territory.

When it came, it was ferocious. Warplanes attempted to strike a military base, now in rebel hands, on the outskirts of Ajdabiya with the intention of depriving the insurrectionists of a vast arsenal of rockets and shells stored in the camp's many bunkers. As they had done at least twice before, the bombs missed their target.

But it was the town of Brega, 50 miles west, that bore the brunt of the first major attack of Col Gaddafi's counter-offensive.

Advancing on the town before dawn in a pincer movement, scores of vehicles carrying some of the Libyan leaders best-trained men launched a surprise attack on its main oilfield and airport, seizing both after encountering minimal resistance.

It seemed a hugely significant victory. By controlling the oilfield, pro-Gaddafi forces would have been in a position to cut the energy supply to most power stations in eastern Libya, including Benghazi, and prevent petrol reaching filling stations across much of rebel-held territory.

The airport too would have given Col Gaddafi a significant boost, allowing him to conduct air strikes on the east with much greater ease.

On Brega's sand dunes, chaos reigned. With no co-ordination and no chain of command, men unused to war fired at random as others rested, eating pasta rushed forward to the front by the women of the town. Yet the regime's victory proved short-lived as the inhabitants, most of them civilians armed with looted Kalashnikovs, fought back and forced Col Gaddafi's men to retreat to the grounds of a nearby technical institute.

Now on high ground, the advantage seemed to swing back to the forces of the regime. As the rebels dug in on the sand dunes below, they came under intensive barrages of anti-aircraft fire and artillery bombardment. Armed only with rifles, the rebels' situation seemed hopeless. Some began to retreat.

"These weapons are not enough," said Mohammed Sultan, shaking a jammed AK-47. "They are hitting us with much more force."

But reinforcements began to arrive. Pickup trucks mounted with anti-aircraft guns, sent from Benghazi and Ajdabiya, careered maniacally down a coastal road that had been suddenly transformed into the main supply route for the rebels.

Shooting frenziedly, they flung themselves into the fight but the men in the technical institute responded with ever greater vigour, firing 120-mm shells that detonated in and around rebel positions. There were women and children too at the institute, dragged out of their cars on the Tripoli-Benghazi road and taken there to be used as human shields, rebel fighters who claimed to have witnessed the abductions said.

In Ajdabiya, reinforcements were arriving too to defend a town that everyone expected to be the next under attack if Brega fell. Three antiquated tanks were rolled forward, but much of the ammunition in the nearby depot could not be used because most of the rocket launchers had been looted or were in a state of advanced disrepair.

Then, as the noise of the guns abated slightly, the sound of a fighter jet filled the air. With a deafening roar, two bombs exploded in the dunes nearby, prompting a panicked retreat by some of the volunteer fighters.

Yet, miraculously and inexplicably, Col Gaddafi's men suddenly retreated from the institute. Bewildered but jubilant rebels surged forward onto its campus before scattering as a MiG fighter roared low overhead and bombed them. Although there were no injuries and Brega once again belonged to the revolution, few believe that Col Gaddafi can be beaten so easily.

His forces may be only slightly less inept than the rebels, and their stomach for the fight may be lacking, but their fire power and air force capacity make them a foe that still engenders terror across eastern Libya.

And in Benghazi, rebel leaders appear to have changed their tune, desperately calling for Western airstrikes against government forces.

Meanwhile, the rebel National Libyan Council in east Libya called for UN-backed air strikes on foreign mercenaries used by Gaddafi against his own people.

Hafiz Ghoga, a spokesman for the council based in Benghazi, told a news conference that Gaddafi was using "African mercenaries in Libyan cities" which amounted to an invasion of the oil producing North African nation.

"We call for specific attacks on strongholds of these mercenaries," he said, but added: "The presence of any foreign forces on Libyan soil is strongly opposed. There is a big difference between this and strategic air strikes."

Wednesday's developments come as the US sent warships to the region as part of a Western effort to pile more pressure on Gaddafi to stop his violent crackdown and step aside.

The destroyer USS Barry moved through the Suez Canal on Monday and into the Mediterranean Sea.

Two amphibious assault ships, the USS Kearsarge, which can carry 2,000 marines, and the USS Ponce passed through the canal on Wednesday.

The White House said the ships were being redeployed in preparation for possible humanitarian efforts but stressed it "was not taking any options off the table".

"We are looking at a lot of options and contingencies. No decisions have been made on any other actions," Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, said.

The US says Libya could sink into civil war unless Gaddafi quits amid fears that the uprising - the bloodiest
against long-serving rulers in north Africa and the Middle East - could cause a humanitarian crisis.

Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, has cautioned that "Libya could become a peaceful democracy or it could face protracted civil war".

But Gaddafi remains defiant and his son, Saif al-Islam, has warned the West against launching military action, insisting that his father would neither step down nor go into exile.

[PanzerJaeger]

More attacks on Brega, and an interesting military analysis of Gaddafi's forces pre-revolt.

[Viking]

The defence of the rebels might not be impressive, but they put up a fight and managed to halt the advances of the loyalist troops nonetheless. It should also be taken into account that Brega is a small town (according to WP it has only about 7000 inhabitants), and that the "genuine front" of the rebels to the east is really Adjabiya. It is also clear that the armed might of Gaddafi cannot be that superior in sum, because otherwise he should have been capable of retaking cities already and quashing unrest with arms, just like in Tripoli.

If he sends out his regular military against the rebels, there are chances that they could use the opportunity to defect and join the rebels, as much of the military already has done. If he sends the presumably more loyal elite troops out, then that would leave the capital vulnerable to civil uprising, and the regular military could also take the opportunity to switch sides as well. So my take is basically that Gaddafi is afraid of initiating any large scale operation because the ball could start rolling against him, once more - new momentum for the rebels.

EDIT: Notice also how the airstrikes apparently deliberately miss their targets.

[gaelic cowboy]

The country will split in my view into Tripolitania and Cyrenacia respectively

[ICantSpellDawg]

Would it be possible to provide aid to the Free governments of eastern Libya which would act as a coupon for them to procure Xe Services as a security "advisor"? This might be a way that we could get troops on the ground without actually sending any.

[gaelic cowboy]

Most Eastern Libyans would still prob be suspicious of XE thinking they were some kind of western army which I suppose they are. Best thing is to get supplies of bread and water an grain across from Egypt while stopping the same in the western portion. If they get food supplies they can out last that loon no prob, he has kept his army purposely weak for years and surrounded himself only with a loyal special guard hence all the defections.

[Lemur]

Charlie Sheen v Muammar Gaddafi: whose line is it anyway?

The US actor and the Libyan leader have produced some choice lines recently. Can you distinguish between them?

Quiztime!

There's now an improved version: Gadaffi, Sheen, or Glenn Beck?

[Boohugh]

This might be a way that we could get troops on the ground without actually sending any.

There were a number of British special forces already on the ground to coordinate the evacuation of British nationals that occurred last week/earlier this week before the evacuations happened - and I imagine other countries had a similar situation - so it's not too much of a stretch of the imagination to suppose they are still there making contact with the rebels and possibly providing them with advice.

Edit: Oh and this is what happens when you don't prepare the ground beforehand!

[Tellos Athenaios]

Edit: Oh and this is what happens when you don't prepare the ground beforehand!

I dunno. From your source it looks like there wasn't really a lot of time to do the proper preparation for whatever they did...

[ICantSpellDawg]

I don't see why we would need permission to use force in Libya if the interim peoples governemnt invites us in. Gaddafi has no authority in the country and is essentially an occupying force. The United Nations will never advocate force on any scale, so long as Russia has a vote. Responsible western powers should have people on the ground right now. Nobody believes that the UN has any legitimacy as anything other than as an assembly of embassies. I would love to see France and Italy act as the driving forces in that kind of escalation

[PanzerJaeger]

Zawiya is supposedly retaken and a senior rebel military leader is killed as pro-Gaddafi forces continue launching offensives while the regime continues to make money- critical to its long term survival.

Meanwhile in Benghazi, rebels blow themselves up without assistance from government forces as the supposedly impendent march on the capital fails to materialize for another day.

[Viking]

While PJ chooses to believe government propaganda, I choose to trust other sources more :

Sky news correspondent Alex Crawford in Zawiya says that in the last few minutes, the rebels have repelled the attack by the government forces. She says 25 to 30 tanks advanced from the east at dawn, and that the city was under attack for two and a half hours. But eventually, the rebels were victorious. People are now celebrating in the main square, she says, chanting and firing into the air. She also says she can see up to a dozen bodies of pro-Gaddafi fighters on the ground. The rebels have also destroyed three tanks.

It also appears that the rebels are on their way to Sirte, and that the road to Tripoli might soon be "open" if they succeed to take that city:

Meanwhile, hundreds of kilometres to the east, rebels have told the Reuters news agency that they are pushing further west after driving government forces from the oil town of Ras Lanuf on Friday. They said their fighters were now in control of the small town of Bin Jawad, about 60km (38 miles) west of Ras Lanuf. One man said they had advanced to Harawa, another 15km (9 miles) further along the coast.

All from the BBC live feed

[tibilicus]

Just out of interest, it appears you're rooting in favor of Gadaffi PJ. If this is so, why?

[Prince Cobra]

Just out of interest, it appears you're rooting in favor of Gadaffi PJ. If this is so, why?

I can give you at least one reason... Some of the Gaddafi female guards

I am not in the proper mood to comment the conflict right now but will return to the topic soon...

[Populus Romanus]

Long live the revolution! Down with Qaddafi!

[Viking]

This is what happens next: Sirte falls tomorrow, and the march on Tripoli begins not long after. The battle of Tripoli will be short due to defecting units dealing severe blows to the loyalists, coupled with the civil uprising of the city. Anyone dear betting against?

[Idaho]

This is what happens next: Sirte falls tomorrow, and the march on Tripoli begins not long after. The battle of Tripoli will be short due to defecting units dealing severe blows the loyalists, coupled with the civil uprising of the city. Anyone dear betting against?

I think if we draw a line with:

Rebels win tomorrow effortlessly <-----1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7-----8-----9-----> Gadaffi crushes rebels and carries on

I think your prediction is about here on the spectrum:

Rebels win tomorrow effortlessly <-----1-----2-X---3-----4-----5-----6-----7-----8-----9-----> Gadaffi crushes rebels and carries on

I would put my own prediction nearer:

Rebels win tomorrow effortlessly <-----1-----2-----3----X-4-----5-----6-----7-----8-----9-----> Gadaffi crushes rebels and carries on


I think it will take a while longer to muster and organise a force to go for Tripoli, and I think there may be a few more counter-offensives by Gaddafi.

[PanzerJaeger]

Just out of interest, it appears you're rooting in favor of Gadaffi PJ. If this is so, why?

I'm rooting for no one. It is not my fight.

The extent of the folly in which many in the West engaged in is worth pointing out. You can see it in this thread. People with no understanding of the situation on the ground declared the regime all but dead and scoffed at suggestions otherwise, when it should have been clear that what the rebels had could not be accurately described as a military force. Heady talk of a grand march on Tripoli and Hitler in his bunker seem but a distant memory at this point.

The Guardian finally speaks in more sobering, realistic terms.

At the beating heart of the uprising, in Benghazi, Libya's rebels are trying to kickstart a revolution that has stalled less than halfway to the capital. Throughout the sacked city that spawned the revolt, the euphoria of victory is steadily becoming a distant memory. Routine has set into a place that two weeks ago was flush with hope and opportunity. After ousting a dictator of 42 years in less than a weekend, anything seemed possible here. For a while.

Shops are now open, streets are teeming and people are again talking about the grind of daily life. Heady predictions of a glorious march to Tripoli have been silenced.

"We didn't ask to be in this position," said Salwa Bugaigis, a leading member of Benghazi's organising committee, now trying to run the town's civil affairs. "I've said that since the beginning. I was one of the first protesters outside the courthouse. Then they attacked us. And then the revolution came. We are running something that we were not prepared for."

Benghazi's rebels were clearly not prepared for another surprise – Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's ability to rally his supporters and mount an effective rear-guard action that has stopped the revolution in its tracks, at least for now.

A week is a long time in Libya's revolution. Seven days ago the narrative was of a rebel advance almost to Colonel Gaddafi's doorstep. The town of Zawiyah — reached by journalists last Sunday – was in the hands of the opposition, which had little more than two ancient tanks, a handful of armoured cars and a pair of anti-aircraft guns.

In reality, the story of "the advance" was always something of an illusion, more real on paper than on the ground. True, the opposition holds much of the east, but the towns that have been ticked off one by one in the country's west and around the capital have been a very different issue — Zawiyah foremost among them.

For these are places that have not so much been captured by an opposition motoring on Tripoli but have fallen to the part of the population opposing Gaddafi.

And while they have been presented as part of a joined-up whole, in the west these opposition centres have been largely isolated from events in the east, unable to be reinforced or resupplied from the main effort in and around Benghazi.

Passing through Zawiyah in the middle of last week, it was clear a new balance of power was emerging. While last Sunday the checkpoints leading towards the city had been armoured cars and pickups, by Wednesday modern tanks, a dozen belonging to the Khamis brigade commanded by Gaddafi's son of the same name, were sitting at junctions outside the town.

Ten kilometres or so behind them was another worrying development for the 200 or so fighters within Zawiyah. First six, then eight, BM-21 missile launchers appeared in a tree-fringed meadow, their rockets pointing towards the town.

When the battle did come in earnest, it appears that those in the town were caught by surprise. For instead of attacking along the main road from the roundabout, close to the town's Martyrs Square, the government forces came from the west, through the outlying area of Harsha, catching the rebels by surprise and killing their commander early on in the fighting.

A teacher in the town said that Zawiyah was now under siege from pro-Gaddafi forces. "The square is surrounded. There is smoke and many fires. They are firing at the houses around the square. Snipers are firing at anyone who moves. My friends and cousins are in the square fighting. There are explosions. Anyone who tries to go to the square is being killed."

Libyan rebels said yesterday afternoon that they had repelled the initial attack by Gaddafi's forces. "They entered Zawiyah at six in the morning with heavy forces, hundreds of soldiers with tanks. Our people fought back … We have won for now and civilians are gathering in the square," said Youssef Shagan, the rebel force spokesman in Zawiyah.

However, another rebel fighter said that Gaddafi's forces were regrouping at the town's entrance. "Gaddafi will never enter this city," said the rebel, who gave his name as Ibrahim. "He will never set foot here. The only way for him to enter the city is when we are all dead. He has to kill us all to control the city."

Earlier, the Libyan leader's forces had fired high-explosive rounds in central streets and dragged people from their homes. There were reports of many casualties among civilians, rebels and soldiers.

The fluctuating fortunes of the two sides, typified in the bloody fights for Zawiyah and the sharp, chaotic battles for towns such as Misrata and Brega, suggest Libya's conflict may endure for weeks, or even months, as neither side is able to muster enough military power to decisively defeat the other.

The opposition, despite its early, bullish pronouncements about marching on Tripoli, lacks any effective air cover, leaving it vulnerable to those in the Libyan air force still loyal to Gaddafi.

Yesterday much of what was on show in Benghazi still spoke of revolution and victory. Stirring hymns, recorded in the wake of the fall of the city, blared out on constant rotation.

Independence flags that were last flown in the city 42 years ago are flying again, and local children shout their defiance as they run traffic intersections that not long ago were the sole domain of Gaddafi loyalists.

But noticeably absent was the gung-ho talk evident further along the highway where the fighting has been at its most intense. Instead people were focusing on more mundane things, like establishing a functional society and finding food. They anticipate being in for the long haul. Locals were pragmatic, not revolutionary.

"We have a lot to do here," said Fatima Marouf, as she bought meat, the first time she had left her house in a fortnight. "If we get this city working, then the rest may happen itself."

[Viking]

That Guardian article is out of touch with what has been going on lately. The rebels have, by force, taken towns that has been defended by loyalist troops - no stalemate on the eastern front just yet, that is certain. Also, if the rebels manage to take Cirte, then the road is almost "open" to Tripoli.

Much closer to Tripoli than Benghazi - in fact, just outside Tripoli - lies the the rebel held city of Misurata. Misurata is about the same size as Benghazi (and the third biggest city in the country it seems), and is the next major city on the road from Cirte. That rebels in Benghazi will not march on Tripoli may well be so, but there are rebels much closer that can do just that instead.