Steve Negus says there are three main things that bode well for Libya's future (uncertain though that future is).
The West has leverage because the rebel alliance knows it could not have prevailed without NATO's airstrikes, but the rebels' honor is intact because they did the hard fighting and bleeding.
Qaddafi's ruling party was not much bigger than him. There are not large numbers of "dead enders" to oppose the transitional government as there were in Iraq when Saddam was deposed.
Libya is highly tribal but pretty homogenously Sunni and conservative. There really aren't any heretics, political or religious, that provides easy planting for Islamist radicalism. My comment: that one we will wait and see most of all.
So saith the admiral commanding Britain's Royal Navy: "If we had a carrier, we'd be there [Libya]" in greater force. Technically, Britain does have a carrier, HMS Illustrious, but there are no aircraft in any of Britain's armed forces that can be flown off it.
Britannica rules the waves? No longer, no.
To be fair, though, if Qaddafi holds out until 2020, The Royal Navy will be able to kick his tail. The toothless Illustrious is due to leave service in 2016. It's replacement, Queen Elizabeth, will not enter service until 2020 at the earliest. QE and its later sister ship, Prince of Wales, however, will be super carriers rivaling the US Navy's and will be the largest warships ever for the Royal Navy. Curiously, both predecessor ships of the same names were battleships sunk in World War II.
EVIDENCE IS now in that President Barack Obama grossly exaggerated the humanitarian threat to justify military action in Libya. The president claimed that intervention was necessary to prevent a “bloodbath’’ in Benghazi, Libya’s second-largest city and last rebel stronghold.
But Human Rights Watch has released data on Misurata, the next-biggest city in Libya and scene of protracted fighting, revealing that Moammar Khadafy is not deliberately massacring civilians but rather narrowly targeting the armed rebels who fight against his government.
Misurata’s population is roughly 400,000. In nearly two months of war, only 257 people — including combatants — have died there. Of the 949 wounded, only 22 — less than 3 percent — are women. If Khadafy were indiscriminately targeting civilians, women would comprise about half the casualties. ...
But intervention did not prevent genocide, because no such bloodbath was in the offing. To the contrary, by emboldening rebellion, US interference has prolonged Libya’s civil war and the resultant suffering of innocents.
President Obama said that there would have been a massacre in Benghazi if Qaddafi's army had not been turned back. This is a reasonable assumption - but it is no more reasonable (or necessarily more accurate) than President Bush's assertion that Saddam Hussein possessed stocks of WMDs that would be turned against Iraq's neighbors or even the United States.
But was protection of civilian lives really Obama's objective, or was this?
Meaning that Britain and France want the United States to take charge again and go Roman on Qaddafi. Well, otherwise, this war could spell the end of NATO. And I say good riddance.
The only air arms operating in a combat role over Libya are the Brits and the French. The other air forces are merely voting "present." But they are not doing anything, you know, military. So, the question: Will the Libya intervention bring the end of NATO?
In truth, the Libyan expedition is an Anglo-French project and has been from the beginning. Yet neither Britain nor France wants responsibility for the operation — and neither feels comfortable relying on the other. ...
And NATO — an organization that, I repeat, did not plan for, prepare for or even vote for the Libyan operation — will shoulder most of the blame. The use of NATO’s name, in Libya, is a fiction. But the weakening of NATO’s reputation in Libya’s wake might become horribly real.
The trouble with liberal interventionism is that it lacks the courage of its neo-imperialist conviction. It claims to know what is best for the world and glories in bombing to get its way. But when push comes to shove it backs off. So we have just a few bombs on the road to Benghazi, one Tomahawk on Gaddafi's compound, a few shells to terrorise Sirte, a handful of RPGs to keep the rebels from despair. It makes us feel good. If this is liberalism, you can keep it.
And that's just the conclusion. Read the whole thing. And remember that The Guardian is one of Britain's leading left-wing newspapers.
With news breaking that President Obama has signed a "finding" that will send weapons to the Libya rebels, it finally occurred to someone in the administration that it might be a good idea to find out just who those guys are. As often, Drudge provides the pithy link:
The Obama administration has sent teams of CIA operatives into Libya in a rush to gather intelligence on the identities and capabilities of rebel forces opposed to Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi, according to U.S. officials. ...
Several lawmakers briefed by Clinton, Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said they were told that the United States is still trying to put together a full picture of the Libyan rebellion but believes that it does not contain large numbers of radical Islamic militants.
“Nobody had detected any significant presence, although they knew there were some people,” said Rep. Gary L. Ackerman (D-N.Y.). But “nobody’s vouching for resumes” at the moment, Ackerman said.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), said he heard nothing in the briefing that turned him in favor of arming the rebels. Calling it a “horrible idea,” Rogers said: “We know what they’re against. We don’t really know what they’re for.”
During America's abortive (and aborted) "humanitarian" war in Somalia, the warlords' gunmen rode around in pickup trucks with homemade weapons mounts. They were nicknamed, "technicals."
Sort of reminds you of Mad Max vs. Humongous in the second of the series.
That's pretty much what the Libyan rebels have, too, As this ABCNews report shows quite clearly. No wonder they're getting their hineys kicked by Qaddafi's army. Even without aircraft, Daffy's loyal troops are a real military and the rebels are not. Having advanced as far as the outskirts of Daffy's birthplace, Sirte, the rebels have been thrown back - often at very rapid speed! - through city after city.
The revolution lacks an organised military structure in spite of several attempts to stamp its authority on the volunteer army. Discipline is bad. Few of the fighters have proper military experience and they would need training in the use of weapons such as artillery. But the revolutionaries have made a strong point of saying they do not want foreign troops on Libyan soil.
The revolution's de facto finance minister, Ali Tarhouni, claims that there are 1,000 trained fighters among the rebels but there is little evidence of it on the battlefield where the anti-Gaddafi forces appear capable of advancing only when the way is cleared by foreign air strikes.
The problem is not solely the rebels' lack of more powerful weapons. In the past two days their disorganisation has shown as they have been badly outmanoeuvred by better-trained forces that have outflanked them with sweeps through the desert. The revolutionaries lack any cohesive defensive plan. Instead they fire wildly at the enemy and argue among themselves about what to do next and who should be giving orders before turning and fleeing. ...
The rebel performance in recent weeks has amounted to rapid advances followed by almost as speedy retreats.
Yet the Obama administration continues to insist that Qaddafi's options are narrowing and that he will soon see he has to leave. But why? He's winning! Winners don't quit.
My prediction: Qaddafi knows he can outlast us and he will. Like Somalia, Libya will become an anchor on the other things the president wants to achieve (coff, 2012, coff) and the mission will be ended. No doubt, we will "declare victory and go home."
As I said before, all that Qaddafi has to do to win is not to lose. But if the rebels don't win, they will lose. This is what is happening now.
Don't know how I missed this. While in El Salvador earlier this month, President Obama was asked by reporters about the American-led campaign in Libya. During one response he said,
And that's why building this international coalition has been so important because it means that the United States is not bearing all the cost. It means that we have confidence that we are not going in alone, and it is our military that is being volunteered by others to carry out missions that are important not only to us, but are important internationally. And we will accomplish that in a relatively short period of time [my italics, HT: RedState].
These being the words from the president's own mouth, someone please explain just how I was wrong when I wrote on March 22 (coincidentally, the same day as the presser in El Sal):
This administration, including Ms. Clinton, has placed American military employment subservient to the United Nations and, most particularly, the Gulf States. ...
Community organizer that he is at heart, this president believes that only the "international community" (of which there is no such thing, but let that pass) can authenticate or authorize military actions by the United States. Since in this case the target is an Arab country, the endorsement of the Persian Gulf states was required. Since the Congress represents neither the "international community" nor the Arab states, then not only is Congress's authorization not needed, it would actually be counter-productive by maintaining the unjust position that America's national self-interest is predominant. This compulsion to subordinate US military operations to the "international community" also explains why the president has vowed to hand operational control of American forces over to a European authority.
By at least conceptually placing America's interests and the use of its military second or third to the "international community's," Secretary Clinton and President Obama likely believe that their main purpose in this intervention has already been accomplished, no matter the outcome on the ground in Libya.
Never let a Libya crisis go to waste if it gives you the chance to subordinate US interests to the "international community's." And since this objective has already been accomplished, it does not matter that he has no plan for Libya henceforth.
When I was assigned to the Army Operations Center in the early 1990s at HQDA, the chief of staff was Gen. Carl Vuono. He sometimes found occasion during our briefings to him about current and planned operations to hammer home a point: "Hope is not a method and wishes are not plans."
Don't tell me what you hope will happen, don't tell me what you wish you could do, he repeated. "Give me a plan that makes it happen."
A man with no plan
How I wish Gen. Vuono, long retired now, could have coached the present commander-in-chief about Libya and the speech about it tonight.
As my internet service went down in the middle of the speech (great timing, eh?) and it's late now where I live, this is just a quick summary analysis.
1. President Obama said that there would have been a massacre in Benghazi if Qaddafi's army had not been turned back. This is a reasonable assumption - but it is no more reasonable (or necessarily more accurate) than President Bush's assertion that Saddam Hussein possessed stocks of WMDs that would be turned against Iraq's neighbors or even the United States. On such assumption war is made in the 21st century, one must suppose.
2. The president simply hopes that Qaddafi will step down, flee for his life, pack it in, retire,take an extended vacation, whatever. Obama is certain that this will take place in the near future. Yet he offered us no reason whatsoever to think it will come to pass. And the president reiterated that NATO is not going to do anything to make it happen.
This assumption is nothing but hope. It is the merest wisp of fog, a vapor in the night, resting only on the president's unwarranted assertion that somehow, ever-thin's gonna work out all right.
3. There was no mention of what a post-Qaddafi Libya will look like politically if Qaddafi does trip, fall down the stairs and break his neck. The rebel alliance is -- what? Who? Obama didn't offer a glimmer. But once again, don't worry, be happy, there is no cause for alarm. Everything's gonna work out all right because our intentions are pure. And we are being careful not to hurt anyone when we drop those bombs.
This is supposed be be the plan - but it's not a plan. It's just hope and wishes. So let's proceed to another, equally possible eventuality: Qaddafi decides that he would like to keep on dictating because that is what dictators like to do. And if he can't dictate over all Libya, he'll take the western part with Tripoli and environs to use as a base to wait NATO out, then roll up the rebels.
If this is Case B, does Obama have a Plan B? No.
Or, supposing that somehow (hoping that somehow, that is) that the rebels do take Tripoli, then what is our plan if Qaddafi's band goes guerrilla? Guerrilla warfare is the most brutal of all and the most lethal to civilians - because, definitionally, there really are no non-combatants in guerrilla warfare.
So then Libya becomes a north Africa version of Northern Ireland during The Troubles, Case C. If there is no Plan B, be assured there is no Plan C.
This was the president's speech in a nutshell: There is no Plan C, no Plan B, and for that matter, there is no Plan A, either. He knows what he wants to happen, but shrinks definitively and certainly away from making it happen. He hopes Qaddafi will play nice and beat feet outta there, and wishes Libya the best in the meantime. Or as Josh Trevino tweeted after the speech,
This is the first time in American history that a President has simultaneously set a war aim and disavowed means to obtain it.
But hope is not a method and wishes are not plans.
My friend David High, Marine Iraq combat field-grade infantry officer with three years there and later, civilian service in sub-Sahara Africa, called me tonight and said, basically, that Obama got rolled by the Europeans.
"It's their mess," David said. "This is an after-affect of French and Italian colonialism. The Libya war is neo-colonialism by the Europeans. And the United States is like fraternity pledges that the brothers make mop up the frat house floor on Sunday morning after an all-night kegger that they didn't attend."
And what is puzzling, if not actually astonishing, is that Barack Obama, who reputedly is of such deep anti-colonialism that he kicked Winston Churchill's bust all the way from the Oval Office to London, fell for it.
Or maybe it's not so puzzling after all, but to be expected.
Update at bottom: Why this will not be a short-term war for us
Don't you love it when a plan comes together? On March 20, I wrote in "The Free Libya Air Force?" that,
If indeed we want the rebels to succeed in taking over governance of the whole of Libya, instead of the rump state it claims to have established in the eastern part of the country, then the Allies' air forces must play the same role there that the US air forces played in the first months of the Afghanistan campaign: be the air force of the indigenous army to support its offensive operations against the government army.
The Free Libya air force, a.k.a. Armee de l'Air, headquartered in Paris, plows the road for the Libyan rebels
The BBC's Ben Brown in Ras Lanuf says: "It's been a remarkable day for the rebels. After seizing Ajdabiya, they have advanced westwards alsong the coastal highway at breakneck speed. Town after town as fallen to them - Brega, Ugayla, Ras Lanuf and Bin Jawad. It has been hard at times for us to keep up with them. The rebels are in a state of high excitement, exhilarated. They can hardly believe the progress they have made. They have been firing their guns into the air in celebration, blaring their horns, screeching their tires and doing wheel-spins. But the truth is that they never would have made this breakthrough if it had not been for the devastating coalition air strikes outside Ajdabiya on Thursday and Friday. They destroyed dozens of Col Gaddafi's tanks, armoured vehicles and artillery pieces. [Italics added]
But the Libyan civilians populating the front line, as it shifts from Benghazi to Ajdabiyah, Brega, and Ras Lanuf, have little doubt that rebel advancement — and safety from government shelling and siege — is heavily, if not entirely, dependent on allied air strikes.
So my apologies to retired British Gen. Sir Richard Dannatt, who in fact did foresee accurately that what the UN thought it was "mandating" and what the Allies would do were two different things.
TRIPOLI, Libya — As rebel forces backed by allied warplanes pushed toward one of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s most crucial bastions of support, the American military warned on Monday that the insurgents’ rapid advances could quickly be reversed without continued coalition air support.
“The regime still vastly overmatches opposition forces militarily,” Gen. Carter F. Ham, the ranking American in the coalition operation, warned in an e-mail message on Monday. “The regime possesses the capability to roll them back very quickly. Coalition air power is the major reason that has not happened.”
But read between the lines: as many of us discerned very early, American forces will be involved in Libya for months to come.
In the Manichean way of Western politics, the UN, followed immediately by the United States and the rest of NATO, decided that Qaddafi and his army are the Children of Darkness and the Libyan rebels are Children of Light. Thus, UNSCR 1973, that gave international political cover to NATO's bombing campaign, was directed entirely against the Qaddafi government's anticipated predations against civilians in areas under rebel control.
But the Libyan rebels are not Children of Light in any way. Set aside for now that they have significant al Qaeda ties. It still should come as no surprise that the rebels are committing atrocities themselves.
An east African worker in Libya in rebel hands. He is not safe.
ADDIS ABABA — While much of the world’s attention is focusing on crude oil prices and the Libyan pipelines in the east of the country– human right groups say rebels are committing crimes against humanity.
In east Libya, African hunt began as towns and cities began fall under the control of Libyan rebels, mobs and gangs. They started to detain, insult, rape and even executing black immigrants, students and refugees.
In the past two weeks, more than 100 Africans from various Sub-Sahara states are believed to have been killed by Libyan rebels and their supporters.
According to Somali refugees in Libya, at least five Somalis from Somaliland and Somalia were executed in Tripoli and Benghazi by anti-Gaddafi mobs. Dozens of refugees and immigrants workers from Ethiopia, Eritrea, Ghana, Nigeria, Chad, Mali and Niger have been killed, some of them were led into the desert and stabbed to death. Black Libyan men receiving medical care in hospitals in Benghazi were reportedly abducted by armed rebels. They are part of more than 200 African immigrants held in secret locations by the rebels.
In many disputes involving Libyan residents and black Africans, the Libyans are turning in the Africans as mercenaries.
Thousands more Africans caught up in this mercenary hysteria are terrified. Some barricaded themselves in their homes, while others hid in the desert. Insulted, threatened, beaten, chased and robbed. Their only crime was being black and therefore treated as “mercenaries” of Gaddafi
While the airing of Gaddafi’s so called “black mercenaries” by Western media has ignited the issue, some say an xenophobic attitude towards these refugees and labourers has existed for years. They say the current attacks are racially motivated because the rebels have released many actual Libyan mercenaries and soldiers under a tribal agreement. They believe many Arabs felt their Libyan leader was abandoning them for black Africans ever since he became a “pan-Africanist”. Many immigrants were regularly victims of racism.
In many situations, Gaddafi and his inner circle preferred black Africans and Libyans from the south over Libyans from the east. Now the angry mobs using the revolutionary movement across Arabia and North Africa are hunting down black people.
Mohamed Abdillahi, Somaliland, 25, was sleeping at his home in Zouara, when the mobs arrived. “They knocked on the door around 1 o’clock in the morning. They said get out, we’ll kill you, you are blacks, foreigners, clear.”
The testimonials and are very similar among the thousands of Africans that saw the ugly side of Libya in the past weeks. “They have attacked us, they took everything from us,” said Ali Farah, Somali labourer 29 years.
“They wanted to kill civilians, they beat many of us. To me, they are animals,” says Jamal Hussein, 25 years Sudanese worker.
Many of the fleeing Africans are terrified to tell their stories. At the checkpoint, they do not mingle with others. When asked about their ordeal, they just freeze, “they stopped us many times and said not tell what has happened here, say there are no problems,” Elias Nour from Ethiopia said.
“For the past seven days, my whole family has been holed up at home without any food, running water or electricity, we appeal for urgent intervention,” Mohamed Abdi from Somaliland told local reporters by cellphone.
In the latest reports reaching Somalilandpress from Tripoli, forces loyal to Col. Muammar Gaddafi have reportedly began kidnapping African and Libyan youths from their homes and universities. They are said to be preparing them for a showdown against the rebels. The kidnapped youths include five teenagers from Somaliland.
Many Africans have virtually nothing after years in Libya, many have been looted, robbed, while others saw their living quarters and apartments go in flames. Now they are praying to God to send them home.
While the international leaders are busy drafting resolutions to dismantle Muammar Gaddafi, the African Union has not yet commented on the situation in Libya.
Meanwhile, the International Criminal Court is said to have started a formal inquiry into possible crimes against humanity in Libya that will investigate the Libyan regime
When/if the rebels take control of the country, they will carry out a bloodbath against their tribal foes that we are not willing to imagine today.
"Now, let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible."
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said that Libya did not pose a threat to the United States before the U.S. began its military campaign against the North African country.
On “This Week,” ABC News’ Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper asked Gates, “Do you think Libya posed an actual or imminent threat to the United States?”
“No, no,” Gates said in a joint appearance with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, their first since the Libya operation began. “It was not — it was not a vital national interest to the United States, but it was an interest and it was an interest for all of the reasons Secretary Clinton talked about. The engagement of the Arabs, the engagement of the Europeans, the general humanitarian question that was at stake.”
So the Obama administration admits that Libya is a war of choice. And here I thought that we were not going to do any more of them. Guess I'm a rube, too.
Does the Libya war kinetic military action signal an actual "Obama Doctrine?" Is there any such thing as a coherent Obama Doctine to begin with - or even one that is not so coherent? Well, sort of.
Ben Rhodes, deputy national security adviser for strategic communications, said Mr. Obama's foreign-policy doctrine is at work in the president's insistence on seeking broad-based support for military action, as well as in his reliance on international institutions and his focus on humanitarian relief and "preventing mass atrocity."
We note that "seeking broad-based support for military action" does not include seeking the support of the US Congress.
This is not much of a doctrine, if doctrine it is supposed to be. White House staff said that the Libya war, uh, KMA, was motivated by the fear of a bloodbath if Qaddafi got the upper hand over the rebellion, as he was clearly doing.
That context was reflected in Mr. Obama's acceptance speech for the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, after he authorized an escalation of the U.S. war in Afghanistan.
"I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people," Mr. Obama said, outlining his rationale for using force. "For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world."
Except there was no threat to the American people from Libya. In the LA Times, Andrew Malcolm describes the Obama Doctrine thus:
The emerging Obama Doctrine can be roughly described as being caught off-guard by foreign events, issuing numerous rhetorical warnings that sound swell and waiting for somebody else to do something because the president's too busy calling on someone to do something about the quality of American education, which has polled better than foreign forays.
It would be so surgical, the commander in chief could take his family on a trip to Brazil and points south while the military went into battle. We wouldn't need a single boot on the ground and could hand command to NATO or France or anybody who wanted it.
Meanwhile, after 42 years in power, a brutal and mad Moammar Khadafy would see our righteousness, lay down his weapons and quit his throne.
Presto. That's how a just war should end, and this time it would -- because of Obama. That, I submit, is the real "Obama Doctrine."
That doctrine is not disturbed by the nagging war-gaming questions of "what if." As in, what if Khadafy refuses to quit? What if he does quit -- what is our plan for Libya? What if Islamists turn it into a safe haven?
But those are nitty gritty questions of national strategy, and therefore beneath the dignity of the one whom Godwin says believes himself to be "History's Great Man."
But fer goshsakes, don't give them any thing that'll hurt someone. Give them Nerf guns!
The administration is having a vigorous internal debate over whether to arm the Libyan rebels with sophisticated western technology, although we're apparently not sure whether that should be pepper spray or TOW anti-tank missiles:
Gene Cretz, the recently withdrawn U.S. ambassador to Libya, said administration officials were having "the full gamut" of discussions on "potential assistance we might offer, both on the non-lethal and the lethal side," but that no decisions had been made.
So apparently the Obama Administration is already committed to the notion that Libya needs more weapons with less accountability. But we wouldn't want to rush into any decisions on Stingers versus Tasers until we've actually ruled out the entire line-up of Nerf weapons, some of which, I think you'll agree, are pretty formidable.
I'll tell you who ought to get to answer that question: Somebody at about the major or lieutenant colonel level in, say, the 101st Airborne, who more than likely is going to have some percentage of the weapons we hand out now pointed back at his troopers within days, weeks, or months. So I'm actually going with the Nerf line-up, if I get a vote.
Now that widespread resistance has broken out in Syria, having festered on a small scale for a handful of weeks, will President Obama and Europe turn their attention toward protecting the lives of Syrian civilians who are being killed as they demonstrate against Bashar al-Assad's dictatorial rule?
Military troops opened fire during protests in the southern part of Syria on Friday and killed peaceful demonstrators, according to witnesses and news reports, hurtling the strategically important nation along the same trajectory that has altered the landscape of power across the Arab world. ...
Human rights groups said that since protests began seven days ago in the south, 38 people had been killed by government forces — and it appeared that many more were killed on Friday. Precise details were hard to obtain because the government sealed off the area to reporters and would not let foreign news media into the country. ...
Human rights groups said that since protests began seven days ago in the south, 38 people had been killed by government forces — and it appeared that many more were killed on Friday. Precise details were hard to obtain because the government sealed off the area to reporters and would not let foreign news media into the country.
Note that last sentence: the government "would not let foreign news media into the country." This is the key point to understanding the fury the West has unleashed against Libya compared to the yawn we are not even stifling concerning Syria.
The campaign in Libya was almost entirely media driven from the outset.
I do not mean by that the the media actually promoted the war against Qaddafi or that media outlets or reporters encouraged Western intervention. I mean that Qaddafi's major strategic blunder was allowing foreign media to cover the resistance from its beginning practically without hindrance, even including broadcasting from Tripoli literally while the initial Allied cruise missiles were landing.
The images and video coming from Libya, especially during the early days of the street demonstrations showing protesters being gunned down, were the sine qua non of Western intervention. Not all the images and video came through the media, of course, as much of it was sent out by the resistance itself, having been captured on smart phones and personal cameras. But the European and American commercial media used those images extensively and that coverage was key to the growing dismay and revulsion in Europe and the US.
"I know that the nightly news cannot cover a humanitarian crisis that thankfully did not happen, but it is important to remember that many, many Libyans are safer today because the international community took action," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday.
Assad, on the other hand, is not the fool that Qaddafi proved to be. Assad's father, Hafez, slaughtered 20,000 people in in 1982 in the city of Hama for resisting his rule. Absolutely no foreign coverage was done because no reporters were there - and for sure Assad didn't send out a press release afterward. Bashar has obviously learned this lesson well.The corpses will mount in Syria quite out sight from the never-blinking eye of the international media. And the Western governments will therefore be able to to pretend they don't know.
