Talk:Battle of Ajdabiya

UN, NATO and the No-Fly Zone

It's a litte confusing. We got the No-Fly Zone which will be now under NATO command, but at the same time we got airstrikes on ground targets. It's obvious that a No-Tank zone is not the same but however still under the mandate to "protect people" and "all necessary means". By now US, UK and France engaged comboys and armored vehicles. On the other side there are countries opposed to ground targetting and are commited to secure the skyes. So we got a NATO controlled No-Fly Zone, and a coalition of UN members balancing the forces on the rebel side, and which are at the same time No-Fly zone enforcers.

For this reason I think it's important to mention the countries which take actions directly on the conflict. I changed this section:

United Nations No-Fly Zone

Hegemn (talk) 04:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Outskirts/Subburbs

I really do not want this to be an edit war. Anyone insisting on the existence of "outskirts/suburbs" of this city PLEASE take the time and look at the satellite map!

Whatever some self-righteous journalist writes for NYT or what not would not make "the suburbs" to suddenly rise from the sand.Ihosama (talk) 23:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Spent some time and "suburb" in British is essentially an outer area of a city. In that sense I stand corrected.Ihosama (talk) 23:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Is the fight over now?

26 Mars: "celebration of anti-Gaddafi forces in the city". If there are celebration in such small city, the fight is prabably over. SHould we write 26 Mars as the end of this fighting with result that the rebels won? 83.185.154.35 (talk) 09:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I am in favor of declaring battle over. If Pro Gradhifi forces attack again, then we ll have a third phase --BOBOlite (talk) 15:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Allies Participants

We can put Canada, France, UK and US. What about Qatar or other nations ? --BOBOlite (talk) 15:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a problem. It's true there're more countries involved enforcing the No-fly Zone under UN resolution, however some of these countries have also expressed their will to do not getting involved in shooting away of airspace potrolling, while others have got involved in the conflict though the "civillian protection" and the "all necessary means" in the benefit of rebel side.

The countries which appear under the UN mandate are those which engaged targets on the site, in this case Ajdabiya. Clicking on them links to the complete intervention operations with everycountry and its resources. 83.34.187.236 (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

One or two battles?

Should we split it to two separate battles because they seem like 2 separate battles. Thanks, Steve T. R.! --SomeDudeWithAUserName (talk with me!) 21:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, they are not exactly two battles. The fight in Ajdabiya have never stopped during Qaddafi forces siege of Benghazi, even at that time a small remains of rebels was still fighting in Ajdabiya (and the Qaddafi forces still striking the city from the air and sea). So, the last-week conflict of the city, which was over yesterday with the victory of rebels, could be just an extension to the same battle rather than a new one --aad_Dira (talk) 07:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC).

Why then is there a gap between the first phase (15-17 March) and the seconde phase (21-26 March)? If it is true that the regime forces never entirely captured the city, 18, 19 and 20 March should be part of either the first or second phase. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

this link in the section "The situation in Libya is confused" clarify the things about claims of taking the control of Ajdabyia. I do have many sources of Al-Jazeera and others that talks about battles in the city in 18 and 19 march, but it is in the Arabic language, and with a fast search i could not find an English refs. this is one of them [1] for 18 says that "And Qaddafi have gathered a large number of forces, tanks and rocket-launchers to take control the city of Ajdabiya" (وقد حشد نظام العقيد قوات ضخمة ودبابات وراجمات صواريخ، في محاولة للسيطرة على أجدابيا), another one from 19 march [2] says "And in Ajdabyia, located in western Lybia, Qaddafi forces have bombed a buildings in the city" (وفي أجدابيا الواقعة شرقي البلاد قصفت القوات التابعة للعقيد القذافي أحياء سكنية). I think i can get more in Arabic with a bit of search, but the English cover of Lybia is not perfect enough. Anyway, google translation may help to understand the text, although it is not good with translating from and to the Arabic. Eventually, for 20 march i did not spotted before a sources for battles, but also i did not spotted ones that says there was not. However, a one day separation between the battles without a confirmed source says that Qaddafi have taken the control of the city is not enough, or at least from my view, to divide the article --aad_Dira (talk) 02:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC).

Pro-Gaddafi victory?

As far as I know, Gaddafist forces never captured the town outright during the first phase of the battle. They only controlled parts of the town and surrounded and besieged that which they did not capture. This cannot be seriously counted as a victory. See for comparison Siege of Tobruk: the city was cut off from outside assistance and besieged for months; however, Allied forces within the city held out until Axis forces were pushed back by Allied forces advancing westward. It is not counted as an Axis victory. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

They never intended to take the city itself, their goal was the junction crossroad to get to Benghazi. That was their victory. The city itself was baypassed. Just like what the Americans did during the Iraq invasion. Will add references to support the victory in the first phase. EkoGraf (talk) 18:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Also all media are stating that rebels retook control of Ajdabiya. Which would mean in essence that beside the center of the city the whole town was under loyalist control up until yeterday. Also, that initial victory by loyalist troops in the first phase is significant because that is what prompted the swift UN action so that temporary victory should be noted. It's just like Ra's Lanuf where you had a rebel victory in the first phase than a loyalist victory in the second one. EkoGraf (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Such a unilateral term as "victory" must be qualified. All reports I read described fighting as ongoing throughout the whole time. This is not like Ra's Lanuf, where revolutionaries initially cleared the town, but lost control the next day. "Retook" can mean that they re-established full control of the town, not that they had ever lost it outright. If we are to describe capture of only the road junction as a "victory", then perhaps this article is inappropriately named; it should be Battle of Ajdabiya Crossroads or something similar. But we cannot call this a plain "victory" for Gaddafist forces in the first phase. We may say something like "pro-Gaddafi forces initially succeed in capturing road junction, but were later driven from the town". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The name of the article is Battle of Ajdabiya not Battle for Ajdabiya, that could by itself mean the main goal of the battle was not to just take the town. However, by all accounts they did take 90 percent of the town, they only didn't manage to clear the central square, which was probably no more than 10 buildings. Listen, I just added three sources in the result section of the infobox that confirm that what happened initialy was a loyalist victory and I will qoute what they say (note all sources are from yesterday or today):

1. Ajdabiya's original fall to the dictator's troops prompted the UN resolution authorising international action in the north African country.
2. A key town held by Moammar Gaddafi's forces for 10 days which was pounded by coalition airstrikes overnight.
3. Ajdabiya's initial loss to Gadhafi may have ultimately been what saved the rebels from imminent defeat. EkoGraf (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not contesting that the attack on Ajdabiya achieved most of its strategic objectives. But regardless of this, the battle was continuous over the period of time described; the town never fully fell. Sure, it was surrounded and its road junction captured, but even as Benghazi was besieged, fighting continued in Ajdabiya. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, "Battle of/for ..." doesn't mean anything. The Battle of Stalingrad was fought for control of the city, but the article is not titled Battle for Stalingrad. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Civilian deaths included in rebel casualties?

I am confused as to the inclusion of civilians in the rebel casualties. This is a war between two factions, and while the rebels are ostensibly protecting the civilians, I see no reason to group together combatants and non-combatants rather than just having civilian deaths in a separate section at the bottom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.164.244.50 (talk) 06:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

Battle of Ajdabiya → First Battle of Ajdabiya – Due to lack of clarity in this article as well as a necessary split in the overlong timeline article, I spun off a Second Battle of Ajdabiya page to encapsulate the events when the Free Libyan Army retook Ajdabiya from loyalist control after winning the Second Battle of Benghazi. I believe this page should be moved, in keeping with the convention expressed in First Battle of Benghazi and others, to distinguish between the battles. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

This was already discussed and an overwhelming concencuss was not to split. There was never a let up in fighting between the two phases. The loyalists did take the majority of the city by March 21, but rebel pockets were still holding out in the center. EkoGraf (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. This appears to be more of a content dispute (i.e. should it be two articles or one?) than a naming dispute and, as a result, is probably not appropriate for the RM process (in my opinion). Jenks24 (talk) 08:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Ajdabiya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110405140715/http://www.businessweek.com:80/news/2011-03-23/coalition-watching-qaddafi-son-s-elite-unit-u-s-commander-says.html to http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-03-23/coalition-watching-qaddafi-son-s-elite-unit-u-s-commander-says.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110323105338/http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/libya-live-blog-march-23 to http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/libya-live-blog-march-23

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)