Why Gaddafi running out of fuel or money or being killed would not guarantee an end to the war in Libya

There have been reports that Gaddafi’s forces may be close to running out of fuel altogether, mostly assuming that this will force his side to surrender. This assumption is based on the North African campaigns in World War Two, in which Rommel was eventually forced to surrender due to lack of fuel for his tanks (1).

However, while that’s possible, there is no guarantee of Gaddafi’s forces surrendering if this happens. They might, but it’s as or more likely that without a negotiated peace they would switch to using guerrilla, insurgent, terrorist or resistance tactics (choose whichever term you prefer), as happened in Iraq after the defeat of it’s military. The fact there are no large numbers of foreign troops occupying Libya (only a few special forces trainers and spotters for airstrikes)  might make this less likely or a smaller insurgency than in Iraq, but it’s still a possibility that has to be taken into account.

Gaddafi’s forces seem to only control one functioning refinery – at Zawiyah – and the oil pipeline to it has been cut by the rebels (2). This should certainly mean that sooner or later his forces will run out of fuel for their tanks, truck mounted Grad rocket launchers, mobile artillery and pick up trucks. How soon (or not soon) is still anyone’s guess, as no-one knows how much oil Gaddafi has stored in reserve in barrels in Tripoli that could be sent to the refinery. (This also raises the question of why NATO hasn’t bombed the refinery and why it tried to persuade the rebels not to cut the pipeline – issues I’ll cover in a separate post).

The claims by Libyan defectors that Gaddafi was running out of fuel and money were made before the 13^th of June though (and seem to mostly have been made by one defector – the former head of Libya’s central bank). He claimed that this would happen within days or a couple of weeks (3). So either it’s going to happen very soon, or else these claims are just based on guesses, wishful thinking, or are propaganda designed to encourage any of Gaddafi’s people hearing it to defect.

Fuel prices have certainly gone up massively in the parts of Libya controlled by Gaddafi’s forces (starting even in May), but it’s possible this is partly due to Gaddafi prioritising supplies to his armed forces (4) – (5).

Similarly reports that Gaddafi is running out of money are no guarantee of his regime falling, nor would an airstrike killing him (a strategy which has failed for over 100 days now and has never worked anywhere else). The assumption that Gaddafi running out of money will lead to the surrender of his forces assumes their primary motivation is money. That may well not be the case.

Assuming killing Muammar Gaddafi alone will end the civil war may be an assumption that turns out to be true, but could equally be as false as the assumption in Iraq that all the insurgents were Sunni and Ba’athist ‘dead enders’ who supported Saddam and that they would surrender when he was gone. In fact most of the insurgents weren’t hardline Ba’athists at all and many of them were Shia.

Bombing carried out by the US air force and the British RAF from 1991 to 2002, combined with sanctions, repeatedly failed to either kill Saddam or generate a military coup against him, so hopes of Gaddafi’s own forces, generals or ministers overthrowing him may be wishful thinking too.

US and NATO military planners are generally meant to plan for the “worst case scenario”, but instead most of their plans (and those of the governments giving them orders) are hugely optimistic and ignore the possible pitfalls and false assumptions involved. As a result most of them either fail, or only succeed at great cost in lives.

Saif Al Gaddafi has repeated that his father will accept elections overseen by international observers in return for a ceasefire (6) – (7). He may or may not be telling the truth, but given all the potential ways this war could drag on with heavy civilian casualties without a peace settlement, taking up the offer might be a sensible course for the rebels and NATO.

Even if it doesn’t work they at least get more Libyans and more people and governments around the world on their side by showing they were willing to try for a peaceful solution. Currently their refusal to accept any offer of negotiations that doesn’t include Gaddafi and his sons giving up power entirely before negotiations even begin is making a long civil war more likely. They have plenty of justifiable reasons to be angry at the Gaddafis’ dictatorship and to want rid of them, but the reality is that at least giving negotiations a try would be the best option.

(1) = The Economist 16 Jun 2011 ‘The colonel is running on empty’,http://www.economist.com/node/18837167?story_id=18837167

(2) = Channel 4 News 29 Jun 2011 ‘Tripoli Pipeline Attack ‘endgame’ for Gaddafi’, http://www.channel4.com/news/tripoli-pipeline-attack-signals-endgame-for-gaddafi

(3) = Bloomberg Business Week 5 Jul 2011 ‘Qaddafi Running Out of Money, Fuel, Ex-Central Bank Head Says’, http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-06-13/qaddafi-running-out-of-money-fuel-ex-central-bank-head-says.html

(4) = See (1) above

(5) = Guardian.co.uk 05 May 2011 ‘Libya faces fuel crisis as oil supplies dwindle’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/05/libya-fuel-crisis-oil-supplies

(6) = Guardian 4 Jul 2011 ‘Gaddafi's son says western powers attacking Libya are 'legitimate targets'’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/04/gaddafi-son-western-powers-legitimate-targets

(7) = Independent 16 Jun 2011 ‘Gaddafi would agree to supervised election, says son’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/gaddafi-would-agree-to-supervised-election-says-son-2298234.html

Libya : Most Libyans don't want any foreign military intervention - and that includes the vast majority of Gaddafi's opponents

Something those people calling for military intervention in Libya (and condemning the UN and Obama for not ordering it) should hear, is that even most of Gaddafi's opponents in Libya don't want any foreign military intervention in their country - and even many exiles are against it

For instance an NPR reporter in Bengazhi found

NPR's Lourdes Garcia-Navarro said …Protesters also made clear that they do not welcome foreign intervention in Libya…….“They don't want to be rescued, they don't want any military intervention,” Garcia-Navarro reported from Benghazi. “They have done this themselves, they say, and they will get rid of Moammar Gadhafi finally themselves, as well.” (1)

Mahmoud Al Nakou, a Libyan exile in London, wrote

Despite the heavy sacrifice they are offering every day, Libyans utterly reject any foreign intervention, even for their defence and protection. From the outset, Gaddafi warned his overthrow would make Libya the same horrific, chaotic arena that Iraq and Afghanistan are today. But the people are adamant that this revolution is theirs alone. (2)

Al Jazeera reports that

Opposition protesters in eastern Libya have formed a national council, pledging to help free areas of the country still under Muammar Gaddafi's rule. Hafiz Ghoga, spokesman for the new National Libyan Council that was launched in the city of Benghazi on Sunday, said …..

…“We will help liberate other Libyan cities, in particular Tripoli through our national army, our armed forces, of which part have announced their support for the people," Ghoga said.

Ghoga said the newly formed council was not contacting foreign governments and did not want them to intervene.

His comments came after US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Washington was "reaching out" to opposition groups in the east.and was prepared to offer "any kind of assistance" to Libyans seeking to overthrow the regime. (3)

No doubt opinion is divided and there will be a minority in favour of it, but it’s clear the vast majority of Gaddafi’s opponents don’t want any foreign militaries in their country and after the bloodbaths and systematic torture in Afghanistan and Iraq and Western governments’ ulterior motive in Libya – disputes with Gaddafi over oil profits, who could blame them?

Even resigned Libyan Justice Minister Abdel Jalil (another member of the ‘National Council’ of the revolution), who seems to be the Libyan version of Curveball, a defector who tells Western governments whatever lies they want to hear to get their favour, said he was against foreign military intervention in a TV interview with Al Jazeera.

UPDATE: Mustafa Abdel Jalil has replied to questions on a no fly zone and foreign military intervention by saying “What we want is an air embargo to stop Gaddafi bringing in mercenaries.” but that “Any intervention will be confronted with more force than we are using against Gaddafi.” , which sounds like the Council do want a no-fly zone but don't want foreign troops on the ground, assuming Jalil speaks for the whole Council(4).

UPDATE 5th March : Since the 1st of March some rebels in Benghazi have been calling for both a no-fly zone and air-strikes against Gaddafi's forces, but only if this is a UN authorised operation (5). It seems unlikely the Russian or Chinese governments will approve either on the UN Security Council unless Gaddafi starts using his air-force against civilians (as previous reports said he was). The Libyan airforce has switched to targeting arms and ammunition dumps to stop them falling into rebel hands - although there are also reports of water pipelines to rebel held cities being targeted, which - if they succeeded in hitting and cutting them (which they don't seem to have so far) could kill a lot of civilians and rebels through shortages of clean water (as they have in Iraq from 1991 to present). The Iraqi no-fly zones were never UN authorised, though the Bosnian no fly zone was.(6) - (8)

There is no reason why humanitarian flights of food, water, aid and to help transport migrant workers trapped on the Libyan/Egyptian and Libyan/Tunisian borders home should not be increased though, with military escorts if necessary. No-one could deny the need for these flights and many lives are already being saved by relatively small scale humanitarian flights by the British government and others (9)

(1) = NPR (US National Public Radio) 27 Feb 2011 ‘Libyan Rebels Close In On Tripoli’,http://www.npr.org/2011/02/27/134101354/libya-rebels-control-closest-city-to-capital

(2) = guardian.co.uk 27 Feb 2011 ‘Libya: neither tribal nor Islamist’ by Mahmoud Al Nakou,http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/27/libya-democracy-freedom-extremists-gaddafi

(3) = Al Jazeera 27 Feb 2011 ‘Libya opposition launches council’,http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/02/2011227175955221853.html

(4) = Sky News 28 Feb 2011 'Libya: Rebels 'May Use Force To Take Tripoli'', http://news.sky.com/skynews/Article/201102115942113

(5) = Washington Post 05 Mar 2011 'As Gaddafi holds on, some Libyans seek foreign intervention', http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/01/AR2011030106963.html

(6) = BBC 01 Mar 2011 'Libya ammunition dump avoids air attack' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12614632

(7) = CNN News Stream transcript 03 Mar 2011 'Fight for Libya Heating Up; Crimes Against Humanity in Libya; Mubarak Corruption Allegations', http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1103/03/nwsm.01.html

(8) = NYT 28 Feb 2011 'Qaddafi’s Forces Hit Back at Rebels',http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/world/africa/01unrest.html

(9) = guardian.co.uk 02 Mar 2011 'Libya: Britain sends planes to help with mass airlift of refugees', http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/02/libya-britain-sends-planes-refugees

This is not another Prague Spring – More Like Another Yugoslavia and the New Great Game

Georgia’s President Saakashvili has presented the war between Georgia and Russia as another Prague Spring or German invasion of Poland, as ‘freedom’ threatened by dictatorship (1). Certainly Russia’s elections are rigged and it has a bad human rights record. Georgia’s not much different though. OSCE election monitors found that the Presidential elections in Georgia in January this year involved intimidation of voters, effectively bribery through handouts of ‘social vouchers’ and that many complaints of electoral “irregularities” were never properly investigated (2). Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch report that Georgian police have carried out violent attacks on peaceful anti-government protests and torture prisoners (sometimes to death) – just like Russian police. Political opponents of the Georgian government have also been jailed after unfair trials, just as in Russia. (3), (4).

The fighting in South Ossetia and Georgia is not the result of an attack by Russia on Georgia but an attack by Georgian forces on the separatist ‘Republic of South Ossetia’. South Ossetia has many Ossetians who want to be part of Russia among its population (North Ossetia being a Republic within Russia).

There have been Russian troops in Georgia’s separatist regions of Ossetia and Abkhazia since separatist groups in both defeated Georgian forces in a civil war in 1992, the year after the collapse of the Soviet Union. During that civil war both sides targeted civilians, leading to 100,000 Ossetians fleeing from South Ossetia to Russian North Ossetia and thousands of Georgians fleeing towards Tbilisi in Georgia. This will almost certainly be matched by more ‘ethnic cleansing’ in the current fighting (5), (6).

Neither South Ossetia nor Abkhazia have been formally recognized as independent states by any government – not even Russia’s, but they have had independence in practice, guarded by Russian ‘peacekeepers’ for over a decade. This is not that different from the status of Kosovo, formally part of Yugoslavia, then Serbia, but in practice independent under NATO peacekeeping forces until its formal recognition as an independent state by the US and various EU governments this year. This may have heightened the Georgian government’s fear of South Ossetia being formally recognized as independent by Russia.

Georgia’s President Saakashvili was well aware of the presence of Russian forces and must have known that any movement by Georgian forces into South Ossetia would mean war with Russia. He would also be aware that Georgian forces would almost certainly lose that war. So his aim must have been to raise the profile of the South Ossetian issue and get international pressure for the withdrawal of Russian troops from the region. The Bush administration may well have promised him support – certainly political support such as the UN Security Council tabled by the US condemning Russian actions in Georgia - and possibly even arms and training for Georgian forces.

Georgia has applied for membership of NATO – something the Russian government is keen to prevent. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline bringing Caspian oil and gas to the Mediterranean also passes through Georgia’s capital Tbilisi – making influence over Georgia’s government a prize for both Russia and the US and EU to fight over (7), (8). A Georgian government spokesmen interviewed on the BBC’s News 24 presented Russian troops’ presence as a threat to western energy supplies from the Caspian (9).

This is not another Prague Spring. It’s more similar to the break-up of Yugoslavia, in which both Croat and Serb forces under extreme nationalist authoritarian governments committed atrocities against civilians euphemized as ‘ethnic cleansing’ – or Afghanistan, where conflict over another potential oil pipeline route providing western companies with an export route for former Soviet republics’ oil and gas is one ulterior motive for the conflict.

The best response the EU and the British government could make would be to remain neutral and call for a ceasefire involving the withdrawal of all Russian troops from Georgia (excluding South Ossetia and Abkhazia) and a negotiated solution to both the Ossetian and the Abkhazian issues – allowing either autonomy or autonomy leading to independence for both. War will only lead to the killing and ethnic cleansing of civilians by both sides – and then by whichever wins.


(1) = BBC 9 Aug 2008, ‘No quick fix to S Ossetia conflict’,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7550780.stm

(2) = Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights
GEORGIA EXTRAORDINARY PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 5 January 2008
OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission Final Report ,
http://www.osce.org/documents/odihr/2008/03/29982_en.pdf

(3) = Amnesty International Report 2008 – Georgia ,
http://thereport.amnesty.org/eng/regions/europe-and-central-asia/georgia

(4) = Human Rights Watch reports on Georgia,
http://hrw.org/doc/?t=europe&c=georgi

(5) = Human Rights Watch 1992, ‘BLOODSHED IN THE CAUCASUS
Violations of Humanitarian Law and Human Rights in
the Georgia-South Ossetia Conflict’,
http://www.hrw.org/reports/pdfs/g/georgia/georgia.923/georgia923full.pdf

(6) = Kleveman, Lutz (2003) , ‘The New Great Game’, Chapter 3, pages 31-50

(7) = Kleveman, Lutz (2003) , ‘The New Great Game’, Chapter 3, pages 31-50

(8) = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan_pipeline

(9) = BBC News 24 10 Aug 2008