kadhafi/gadhafi (the spellings of his name change faster than a baby's diapers) and his henchmen seem to be putting up stiffer resistance to the "former rebel" attacks in bani walid and sirte.
the lamestream media reports heavy fighting, in both towns, and the "former rebels" are frustrated by the resistance. and, there is frustration and dissent and argument among the "ranks" of the rag tag attacking forces, which really haven't much notion of what they are up to in a military sense.
and, the gadhafi forces are not melting away, are not vanishing from the fighting, and are apparently having much success in repelling the rebel advances.
read it here. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44568376/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/ .
the article talks of heavy fire, including rockets from both sides. a doctor who is quoted prominently in the article claims to have received perhaps two dead combatants over the course of the day, and a smattering of wounded.
this has continued to amaze me, that a war could be fought of this "intensity" as described by the media, yet no one is killed or wounded, relative to the casualties one would expect in intense infantry fighting.
the rebels are said to have brought up a tank, ... , as in one tank, ... , to join the battle at bani walid. where did all the tanks and artillery pieces that gadhafi had in his military go? i wonder over the apparent fact that none of the tanks shown to have been "captured" in tripoli have been put into battle by the "former rebels:" perhaps they were not fit for battle, perhaps there is no ammunition, (though they would make good portable machine gun nests), or perhaps there is no one to drive them or operate the guns. who knows?
this whole thing continues to mystify me.
the nature of the fighting is odd, the lack of casualties is odd given the "intensity" of the "battles" depicted by the press, and why gadhafi could muster effective resistance in bani walid and sirte but not in tripoli is most curious.
no n.a.t.o. bombardment?
the local mosques are supportive of gadhafi's regime? the tribesmen are loyal to gadhafi?
it is all rather curious as to why gadhafi's forces have suddenly become effective (though not at actually killing anyone in combat), and those of the "former rebels" suddenly ineffective.
to my mind, it has yet to be demonstrated that the "former rebels" have struck gadhafi's regime a fatal blow, and i suspect that if anyone is to do it, it will be nato air power. and, if that is not done relatively quickly, are we to see a renewal of combat in tripoli as gadhafi's forces attack the "government?" he now knows, doesn't he, who's been naughty and who's been nice.
how secure are the oil fields that the french need as life's blood itself, in all this? it does not have the feel of a battle that is over. and, the forces of the "former rebels" seem to be falling into horrible disarray.
john jay @ 09.19.2011
Comments