By contrast, the rebels insist on maximalist aims while consistently retreating to a north-eastern rump where they are vulnerable to the colonel’s predations. National Council members who urge realism and call for the consideration of political options are dismissed as defeatists. Last week, gun-toting youths on Benghazi’s docks chased away a ship carrying ambulances and humanitarian aid from Turkey, on the grounds that its prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, was using the country’s NATO membership to limit the military alliance’s bombardment of the regime’s forces [bold mine-DL]. ~The Economist

Consider the absurd situation in which the U.S. and NATO have put themselves. NATO officials repeatedly and correctly say that there is no military solution in Libya. Everyone except the rebels seem to understand that a negotiated settlement is the only way that the fighting is going to be brought to an end anytime soon, and an end to the fighting most benefits the rebels and the civilian population, as they are the ones suffering the most as long the fighting continues. The rebel-controlled areas are the part of Libya that is suffering heavily while the fighting is going on, and the rebel-controlled east is probably more desperate for supplies than the areas controlled by Gaddafi. Naturally, then, the rebels are the ones taking an uncompromising stance on the terms of a temporary cease-fire, they refuse to treat with any available mediators because they are seen as biased, and they are the ones chasing away some relief ships because they object to the policy of the sponsoring government.

The rebels’ own political interests and the best course of action for making humanitarian relief available to the population dictate that they agree to a cease-fire, so, of course, they are the last ones that will agree to a cease-fire unless they achieve all of their political goals immediately. As far as I can tell, their Western patrons are encouraging them in this self-defeating course of action, because these patrons are no more inclined to make a deal with Gaddafi than the rebels are. Of course, Gaddafi could implement a unilateral cease-fire, but he has no incentive to do that under the current circumstances. While the fighting continues, he stands to gain against the hapless opposition, and halting his attacks is the one bargaining chip he has that he might conceivably be willing to offer that the other side wants. The rebels are acting as if time is on their side, when they are under more pressure in terms of dwindling resources than Gaddafi’s forces are. One wonders how long anti-Gaddafi solidarity is going to last in the east when people are no longer getting paid and can’t find enough food.

The open secret behind all of this is that the Transitional National Council cannot make a credible deal that is binding on its fighters, because it doesn’t actually have any authority or legitimacy, either. It is a makeshift organization that represents the rebels only in the sense that they are currently willing to defer to it, but if it were to make a cease-fire agreement that enough of them rejected it would become expendable. The moment that it appears to flag in its anti-Gaddafi zeal, it could lose what little control it has and become a target for zealots on the rebel side.

P.S. The more immediate problem is that the people in the east might feel compelled by basic needs to give up on the rebellion. The Daily Telegraph had this report from earlier in the week:

“I can see a humanitarian crisis coming and the minute people starve they will raise Gaddafi’s green flag,” Mr Ben Moussa said.

“Morale is still good and people are ready to die for the revolution – but they are not ready to see their children die for it. We have a few weeks’ supply of staple food supplies, but it is not looking good and I am getting worried.”