Libyan stalemate

The Saturday evening Nato air strike on Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafis Bab al-Aziziya compound that reportedly killed his son Saif al-Arab and three grandchildren came shortly after Gaddafi had called for a ceasefire and talks with Nato to stop the coalitions air strikes against his regime. Nato and the Libyan rebel leadership had rejected Gaddafis offer. While the rebels claim the time for compromise is past,Nato says it will be unmoved till it sees action on the ground,not just words. This wasnt Gaddafis first offer of ceasefire,and his actions hadnt actually matched his earlier declarations of halts to fighting.

However,Saturdays strike comes in the midst of what was being called the Libyan stalemate,since neither the rebels nor the regime seemed strong enough to decisively win. For the rebels,the drawn-out battle of Mistrata would symbolise the difficulty of toppling Gaddafi. However,Natos limited but significant involvement could still be the gamechanger for them as the Tripoli strike showed. Although the deaths have not been independently confirmed,Gaddafis willpower has just been put to its toughest trial yet.

The reason why Libya which was not on anybodys whos next list immediately after the Arab Spring began has been every bit the nightmare it was feared to degenerate into,is the obstinacy on both sides. The rebels will not cease till the Butcher of Tripoli goes,and Gaddafi,less than a memory of the young captain who engineered the coup of 1969,has repeatedly said that he will not leave the country. His speech before the Nato strike,albeit more conciliatory than before,was every bit as defiant as ever. Meanwhile,Libyan civilians are dying,although Nato claims its targets are only military and that the Bab al-Aziziya compound was a known command-and-control building. It seems this bloody chapter of the Arab tumult will not close without somebody blinking. Is it any clearer now who that is more likely to be?