Sitting in Tripoli is to be disconnected from reality. There is the propaganda effort from Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's regime that sometimes would verge on the ridiculous if the situation were not so tragic. This is a phenomenon that has been well documented by the media camped here at the regime's invitation.
But there is another disconnect. What you read of events often close to the city, filtered through opposition voices, is frequently equally as misleading, creating an impression that has crept its way inexorably into the international media. Pitched battles are described breathlessly as if they were major confrontations – tanks on tanks, brigade on brigade, with the buzz of aircraft always in the air, swooping in to bomb.
In the town of Zawiyah last week – "the key town of Zawiyah", as it has become – a few hours of skirmishes that left a handful of dead was transformed via this prism into a confrontation between two sides armed with tanks. I have read of helicopter attacks on civilians in neighbourhoods of the capital; the bombing of outlying towns. Yet – for now at least – I have not found evidence of it. What I have found is serious enough. Opposition supporters in a government-controlled town who say they are fearful of their lives if they speak out, and the graves of those killed fighting in Zawiyah.
It is true too there have been more serious clashes in the east of the country, and air raids witnessed by my colleague Martin Chulov. But still there is much about this narrative that does not feel real.
I read, for instance, that Gaddafi is dug into his last stronghold of Tripoli with the rebels advancing on every front. Yet when I drive out into the towns around Tripoli, I find a different picture. Towns are changing hands, it is true. But this is not a war of movement if, indeed, it is really yet a war at all, despite the impression being given. Traffic is moving on the roads. Even in the parts of Zawiyah not held by the opposition there are shops open and people walking on the streets.
The much-vaunted notion of imminent civil war appeared to be challenged on Sunday when government minders, searching for journalists who had gone to meet the rebels, wandered among their opponents unmolested wearing their government press jackets.
There is another disconnect in all this. I read about advances and possible outcomes as if this were a war between two states, or a civil war already well advanced. Instead it feels – at least from where I am viewing it, and that is an important caveat – like a civil insurrection with moments of sometimes serious armed violence.
So here is the reality. Gaddafi can no more quickly attack Benghazi with his armour than the rebels can advance on Tripoli in sufficient numbers to force the issue decisively. For either side to move the hundreds of kilometres to come into contact would require a huge logistical operation using tank and armour carriers which could not drive the long distances and still be ready to fight.
Why this matters is simple. Foreign policy – including the increasing threat of military intervention – is being driven by what the media is reporting from Libya, and that is being driven largely by reports from the opposition, some of which are true, some of them dubious. The Libyan government says that. But for once, in the midst of all the regime's evasions, lies and fantastical notions, it may just have a point.
We are being drawn into a crisis where credible information about so much of what is happening is not simply at a premium, it is often impossible to mine from among all the exaggerations and misinformation. If proof of this were necessary, it was provided by the foreign secretary, William Hague, when he announced he had information that suggested Gaddafi had flown to Venezuela.
The reality is that we are rushing to make policy on Libya without knowing precisely what is happening here. That is not to say we do not know some of the broad details. Yes, people are being killed for demonstrating against the regime. People, too, are being taken from their homes amid a widespread policy of intimidation. Human rights abuses are unquestionably being committed. But it is a question of scale. And there is a requirement for a response that fits the reality of what is happening and does not exacerbate the country's problems, or the region's.
We should admit our ignorance and own it as we try to determine what is happening in Libya. When we have determined the reality of what we are dealing with then perhaps, and only then, can we talk seriously about appropriate measures to respond to it.
Brian Whitaker's best blogs and analysis from the Middle East
Comments in chronological order (Total 20 comments)
3 March 2011 7:35PM
Gotcha!
3 March 2011 7:39PM
Gadaffi's message, like the organisation of media coming from Libya is distorted. Perhaps this is why he is still in power? This is helping him when it comes to justifying hurting the people of Libya.
3 March 2011 7:42PM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
3 March 2011 7:43PM
Too bloody right! Excellent reminder. Guardian liveblog please take note.
3 March 2011 7:44PM
good article.
there are too many unknowns in Libya...brought about initially by the complete absence of foreign reporters....which means that big stories often emerge from rumours....we don't even have a clear picture yet of the nature and scope of the opposition forces.
utimately it is the Libyans, like the Egyptians and Tunisians before them, who have to sort things out for themselves.
Yes, the international community has a role to play...but ultimately a supporting one.
I hope that you and your colleagues keep up doing what is an important and excellent job.
3 March 2011 7:49PM
I agree about the untrustworthyness of a lot of the information. However what is clear is that the government attacked people who merely wanted to demonstrate and have some say in the government of the country.
We have also heard Mr Gadaffi say that he would kill them like vermin and search them out in their homes.
They have asked Mr Ghadaffi to go.
It's clear which side we are on I hope.
3 March 2011 7:52PM
As someone who is half libyan and british, lived there as a child and has met many libyans in my life I assure you the people of libya are deeply ashamed of lockerbie and also anything else that comes out of Ghadaffi's mouth. He has been the laughing stock of the world for quite some time - libya's disgust is deep and constant. To cruely paint all libyans with the same brush is outstandingly ignorant.
God I hate how right wing cif actually is these days. I thought this was supposed to be the bloody guardian?
3 March 2011 7:53PM
that comment was aimed at
3 March 2011 7:55PM
I'm still waiting for incontrovertible evidence that African mercenaries are responsible for propping up the Gaddafi regime.
Hard to sift through the propaganda and wishful thinking to get a realistic grip of what is actually happening on the ground in Libya.
3 March 2011 7:59PM
Good article. What we're seeing is the result of the huge cutbacks in real journalism over the last 30 years. There are hardly any correspondents (the usual suspects with a packed suitcase ready to fly anywhere, put on a flak vest, stand in front of the camera and fire off emails don't count as real correspondents). The news networks have been cut to the bone. You're relying on idiots like me for most of your content, so when something like Libya kicks off, its second and third hand reporting, unsubstantiated propaganda, overblown reports of tiny firefights (6 people being killed is not an assault on a major town), etc.,
3 March 2011 8:04PM
poorgaytrash 3 March 2011 7:52PM As someone who is half libyan and british, lived there as a child and has met many libyans in my life I assure you the people of libya are deeply ashamed of lockerbie and also anything else that comes out of Ghadaffi's mouth. He has been the laughing stock of the world for quite some time - libya's disgust is deep and constant. To cruely paint all libyans with the same brush is outstandingly ignorant. God I hate how right wing cif actually is these days. I thought this was supposed to be the bloody guardian?
how am i right wing!
to be "left" do i have to pretend to myself i care about others and blindly agree with whatever dribble gets put on the guardians pages?
as for the rest of your post, thats just your opinion. as is mine.
3 March 2011 8:05PM
moderators - what was wrong with my first comment which has been deleted?
3 March 2011 8:09PM
For me ,this one has some resemblance to the WMD in Iraq inculcation- where all of the evidence or commentary was coming from the one source.
This in in contrast to what happened in Egypt.
3 March 2011 8:09PM
So Peter - get out there tomorrow - report what you see with your own eyes and file facts from contacts and sources you know to be reliable and fight like mad to keep things in context.
It's always nice to see a little real journalism among the bullshit
3 March 2011 8:10PM
Perhaps this ambiguity is why the US military establishment has been so tepid about even setting up a no-fly zone? Because they sense the cloudiness of the situation and don't have any desire to wade into it?
Despite the unsightly eagerness of the media to encourage intervention and the desire of the Chavez Internet Solidarity Battalion to unpack their No Blood for Oil banners...
3 March 2011 8:13PM
usini
I take your point but isn't it interesting to notice all the hype about no-fly zones, sanctions, freezing assets, war crimes investigations etc, in the context of Libya but no such similar suggestions in the case of Yemen and Bahrain.
3 March 2011 8:17PM
It's good that you have pointed out the propaganda of both sides. Obviously the mainstream media are exaggerating in order to build a case for military intervention if necessary to secure the oil. If Gaddafi starts to win then obviously the UK, USA , Italy etc won't feel the need to invade and it does seem to have dampened enthusiasm for military intervention.
Likewise if the interim Bengazi government headed by one of Gaddafi's pro-big business former cronies then the Western allies needn't worry. But all this talk of military intervention seems to have came about after a second government had emerged in Bengazi in response to growing distrust of the first. The Eastern army now won't advance on Tripoli because they want to give Tripoli the honour of liberating itself first. Of course that makes perfect sense.
As for the propaganda I've never seen any craters from bombs being dropped on Tripoli. There was even stories of Gaddafi's supporters going house to house shooting people and raping the women. Again doubtful. As for Gadaffi's mustard gas. He doesn't have launchers. That propaganda is just another attempt to drum up support for military intervention.
3 March 2011 8:21PM
TrueColours 3 March 2011 8:17PM It's good that you have pointed out the propaganda of both sides. Obviously the mainstream media are exaggerating in order to build a case for military intervention if necessary to secure the oil.
can you please explain why the mainstream media would exaggerate in order to build a case for military intervention if necessary to secure the oil?
it just seems a bit silly to think that.
3 March 2011 8:23PM
Leaders who do what they please. Huge wealth disparity.....................
Revolution in Hyde Park this summer......!!!!!
3 March 2011 8:23PM
You said it.
The Western media in it's Americanized search for $$$ will tell you anything.
Ever since the Iraq wars, I find it impossible to believe anything in the mainstream media, even the Guardian.
I constantly look everywhere else and make my mind up myself.
I would go so far as to say that the Western Media probably lies and exaggerates as much as anywhere