Misrata is the Stalingrad of Libya

Misrata has become a modern Battle of Stalingrad. Over the past 24 hours the Gaddafi Army has been resupplied with numerous Grad missiles and launchers with reports of heavy rocket artillery pounding the city. Such a report suggests we are going to see a number of reports like this over the next several days.

Human Rights Watch quoted Dr. Muhammad el-Fortia, who is employed at Misrata Hospital, who stated that 257 people have been killed and 949 wounded and hospitalized since February 19 in the city. The wounded included 22 women and eight children.

Another doctor believes the toll of dead and wounded is much higher given the fact that many residents cannot access hospitals or medical clinics.

"The fighters know how to protect themselves, but the civilians are getting hurt," a doctor told HRW. Civilians who were interviewed said Gaddafi’s army fired at them deliberately and indiscriminately - a direct violation of international humanitarian law.

One doctor on Al Jazeera English claimed the other day the average number of people killed or wounded per day has been at least 300 every day for the 6 weeks of fighting. That would only be 12,000 in a city where 300,000 people are still believed to be living, meaning the doctor is giving a potentially legitimate number. As has been discussed many times and in many places, Libya is a political tragedy of the worst kind primarily because Western assistance came in the form of tactics instead of a strategy to meet the requirements as demanded by a UN mandate for policy.

A "No-Fly zone" and "no boots on the ground" both represent tactical options that set the conditions for our military leaders to develop a military plan from, and just as the no-fly zone has been legitimately called a sham with the repeated bombings of military equipment; the absence of boots on the ground will insure Misrata will be a massacre right under the cockpit view of NATO - a mark that may indeed kill the image of the alliance as a force for good globally. The idea that anyone in NATO wants to "occupy" Libya is a bad joke - there is no such desire by anyone. The UN resolution prevents any occupation force, but does not explicitly preclude the air traffic controllers and other special operations forces that makes airpower effective, nor does the UN resolution preclude "hit-and-run" amphibious raid operations by Marines from the Sea that can maneuver in force and roll back Gaddafi's military capabilities.

Without the ability for NATO to conduct special operations and hit-and-run tactics from the sea, there is no way to prevent the massacre in Misrata.

Despite all that I have seen and read, I am not compelled to action by a massacre in Misrata, but I also understand that I am almost certainly in the minority (or will be as events continue to unfold). I still believe the same argument that prompted action in defense of Benghazi will prompt defense in Misrata.

Until I see evidence otherwise, I believe all of these events were predictable, and have been from the beginning part of the military contingency plans drawn up. I outlined exactly this scenario unfolding on the blog, and I have only seen events that reinforce my feeling that the military plan is soundly intact despite the endless news suggesting NATO is somehow failing. NATO is doing fine, except perhaps in preventing military resupply to Gaddafi. Everything else was easily predicted based on the tactical limitations decided by political leaders.

Another week of massive casualties in Misrata and other places, which cannot be prevented by NATO without boots on the ground, will lead to continued cries for assistance and yes - boots on the ground by NATO to stop the massacre in Misrata. From the beginning Libyans have refused assistance on the ground, but predictable conditions have long made it highly likely and predictable that Libyans would be demanding boots on the ground as realization set in they cannot possibly defeat Gaddafi without such assistance.

And by coincidence (or more accurately, according to plan based on explicit very early call up of the Bataan ARG), just as the international community rallies to contain the international political damage to NATO being caused by Gaddafi's massacre in Misrata taking place on Al Jazeera and CNN, the United States will have 2 MEUs off the coast of Libya. At what point do we recognize the early deployment of the Bataan ARG and the early deployment of the HMS Albion for NATO exercises as more than just coincidence with conditions so predictably deteriorating in Libya due to the known and well understood limitations of "air power only" scenarios?

Tell me how this ends. Tell me you believe the President, and that we aren't sending in the Marines even though at the operational level of war the SOF + Marine option is the one capability that guarantees NATO can stop the massacre at Misrata.

We live in interesting times, where the serious question the President must ask himself over the next 7-10 days is whether or not to let the massacre in Misrata happen, or escalate the use of force to the next level. Which way do you believe the media narrative will push that decision?

Do you believe the President will allow NATO's credibility get destroyed in the Arab world in Libya? I don't, but I don't think it will be easy to insure that conclusion even as doing exactly what we are doing insures the opportunity will exist.