Yesterday I detailed some recent Guardian punditry about Libya that is beginning to look a trifle shaky. Here's some more, from the ever-steely Jonathan. In May he was writing:
Beware ministers' claims that a military campaign is making slow but steady progress. It nearly always means the opposite. If "progress" was really being made in Libya, why would it be necessary for Britain and France to send attack helicopters?
... The more Nato escalates in word and deed, the clearer it is that the campaign has stalled. What is going on in Libya is civil war but one that is stalemated...
The rebels, Steele said, 'will not be able to capture Tripoli'. Then, in July, he repeated that 'Nato had got itself into a stalemate' - a 'military stalemate'. The thing to go for was a 'mutually agreed ceasefire'.
This week, however, Jonathan Steele is making handsome amends. See how he concedes his previous mistake:
As you'll learn if you read on, Nato played a 'crucial role in tipping the military scales in Libya'. But, strangely, there is no mention of that dratted stalemate.Now that the military battle for Libya is all but finished, the challenge for Nato is enormous.