dagblog - Comments for "The Ongoing Lies In Libya"

House Rebukes Obama for

artappraiser — Sat, 04 Jun 2011 14:45:41 +0000

House Rebukes Obama for Continuing Libyan Mission Without Its Consent
By Jennifer Steinhauer, New York Times, June 3/4, 2011

[...]
The resolution, which passed 268 to 145, was offered by Speaker John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, to siphon off swelling Republican support for a measure sponsored by Representative Dennis J. Kucinich, an Ohio Democrat, which calls for a withdrawal of the United States military from the air and naval operations in and around Libya.

The resolution criticizing the president passed with the support of 45 Democrats and all but 10 of the Republicans who were present. The measure from Mr. Kucinich, one of the most liberal members of the House, later failed by 148 to 265, with 87 Republicans voting in favor.

As a legislative matter, Mr. Boehner’s resolution has no practical effect, and is little more than an expression of opinion. A decision by the Supreme Court more than two decades ago suggested that Congress is not empowered to enforce a resolution or other directive that, unlike a bill, the president has no chance to veto.

But as a political matter, the resolution is an unusually blunt confrontation with an American president during a military conflict, and it underscores a bipartisan distaste among members of Congress for attempts to bypass their authority when waging war. Over all, roughly two-thirds of the House members who voted Friday backed one or two measures disapproving of the president’s actions. (Mr. Kucinich voted for both.)

Mr. Boehner’s resolution demands that the administration provide, within 14 days, detailed information about the nature, cost and objectives of the American contribution to the NATO operation, as well as an explanation of why the White House did not come to Congress for permission to continue to take part in the mission. The language suggests that the House may consider funding requests for the Libya operation in a harsh light if not satisfied with the response to its requests for information.

The issue is unlikely to be taken up by the Senate....
[....]

Try this.

we are stardust — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 23:04:26 +0000

In reply to The link doesn't work.In the

Try this. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MF03Ak01.html

I clipped the other straight from the piece, so no source linked. No more time just now; maybe later. RL is calling...

Quick google has Ramussen speaking of 'a small force' on the ground. Anyway. You're a better strategist than I for sure.

The link doesn't work.In the

kgb999 — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 22:53:12 +0000

In reply to Well hell, kgb; I'd admit it

The link doesn't work.

In the early days of the uprising, Western journalists were frequently surprised to see the same people participating in anti-Gaddafi rallies one day and in pro-Gaddafi rallies the next.

I was reading an awful lot of the reports being made during that time. I don't recall western journalists reporting this, certainly not with frequency. Although, OTOH, if some guy shows up with an AK-47 and invites you to a Qaddafi rally - I imagine you might be inclined to attend. Was this sourced or just asserted?

My problem with a lot of the more elevated concerns being expressed is they seem to be largely speculation-based or just blurted assertions given in an "EVERYONE knows THAT ... dummy!" kind of bluster but really not that well sourced ... and some of it kind of outlandish. No way in hell the Rebels would accept Saif.

I would like to see the full statements and context on that Rassmussan quote. That seems difficult to construe under the UN resolution. Assuming the Libyans have resolved their conflict, I don't imagine foreign interests would be prohibited from visiting or doing business there (nor do I imagine the Libyans themselves would want that). We don't seem to think it's an invasion when the Italians bring their noisy-ass warplanes out to Nellis for joint training missions. OTOH, we don't let them establish an air-wing either (oh, wait ... maybe we do now - isn't that that whole Mountain Home thing here in Idaho? ... I get so confused). Depending on what they are envisioning I may or may not be pretty opposed to it.

As for Russia. Of course they are playing their own game. Same with China. Both are geographically well insulated from the situation and have more to gain from leveraging Europe and the US than they have to lose from any connection with Qaddaffi who made himself pretty much untouchable with everything he's done anyhow. Both China and Russia are trying to burnish their human-rights image for various reasons, he is now a SERIOUS liability on that front to the point they actually may be creeped out by him too. Not much upside to him - better to play NATO like the GOP plays Obama and see what they can get.

Soon is relative; my totally non-expert guess is months rather than years. I'm glad to see the authorization is 90 days (I'd have been happy with 60).

And egad; if Pepe's even

we are stardust — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 22:19:03 +0000

In reply to Well hell, kgb; I'd admit it

And egad; if Pepe's even half-right, it's pretty complicated concerning the counter-revolutions, the West and Israel.

I won't cut and paste.

Well hell, kgb; I'd admit it

we are stardust — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 22:05:10 +0000

In reply to And I guess you're assuming

Well hell, kgb; I'd admit it in a Milwaukee minute if I remembered it! ;o) I will admit that I trusted Mike Mullen on it when he said it wouldn't be a feasible fix, and that I don't see us getting into military ventures just for humanitarian reasons, and that the last one may have been Clinton in Kosovo, but surely not in Somalia, which made me sad because I like the Somalis best of all African nations, for complicated reasons...

But it took some genius finding out that Somalia had bauxite or some moneral we need for some metal manufacturing, sooooo.... but then when we pulled out after mucking about, what a mess.

My thing about that news coming from an alleged Algerian source is that, while Algeria isn't a Gulf Cooperation memeber, they seem to bat for the same sort of team: dictators suppressing Arab Spring protests, and trumpeting the fears of AQIM who were backing protests in Tunisia and Egypt, so....I figured it was just another bit of leverage to keep the NATO powers involved longer.

Victor Kostev at Asia Times has some kinda dark thoughts and concerns, and even mentions those weapons I was alluding to, and wonders who has them, and posits that even with Gadaffi gone one day, it will take lots of peacekeeping to sort out tribal alliances and whatnot.

Oh and this bit on why Russia may have finally called for him to step down, Let me paste in things at will, okay?

"Some speculated that Russia sensed that Gaddafi's downfall was inevitable, but it is hard to gauge how sincere the Kremlin shift is. Persistent reports of secret talks between the rebels, Gaddafi and possibly NATO have raised the possibility of a secret deal being in the works; some pundits suggest that such a deal may involve a transfer of power within the Gaddafi family, for example to Gaddafi's son, Saif al-Islam.

Russia's diplomacy on Libya has arguably been driven by ulterior motives since the start of the crisis, [2] and we can expect the Kremlin to have extracted a handsome price for even a slight change in its position. Some analysts speculate that such a price might manifest itself, for example, in American concessions over the missile defense system in Europe.

(pretty cynical realpolitik)

"In the early days of the uprising, Western journalists were frequently surprised to see the same people participating in anti-Gaddafi rallies one day and in pro-Gaddafi rallies the next. It is possible that we are witnessing a similar phenomenon now, with at least some people circulating between the sides. The reports of back-channel negotiations between the seemingly irreconcilable rival governments add to these suspicions.

It is hardly a surprise, therefore, that NATO's bombing campaign is growing increasingly desperate. On Tuesday, Libya accused NATO of having killed 718 and injured 4,067 civilians since the start of the operation. These figures are hard to verify, but the air raids have recently intensified and the potential targets have broadened, making collateral damage more likely.

British and French attack helicopters are expected to be put to use soon, and as I argued previously, this could be seen as a precursor to a ground invasion. [3] In fact, NATO secretary-general Anders Fogh Rasmussen admitted on Monday that NATO might send ground forces to Libya at some point, presumably after Gaddafi's ouster. ''I would anticipate that there might be a need at some point to unfold a small force ... a small number of people there to help them in some way," he told a NATO forum in Varna, Bulgaria.

So let's hope it can end well, but 'soon' seems a bit much to ask for, IMO.

And I guess you're assuming

kgb999 — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 18:00:46 +0000

In reply to I think the idea is that NATO

And I guess you're assuming that these weapons are the same ones given to the Rebel Forces; maybe, if any of this is so, they are coming from Gadaffi's arms stashes, no?

I imagine it's a little of both. There is a strong profit motivator and not a whole lot of oversight on either side. On the one hand, Qaddafi is probably hurting for cash; on the other he is also looking at resupply issues where the rebels are significantly augmenting their supply lines. I can't decide if I think generating cash or keeping weapons would be his primary motivator. Most of his generals must be thinking about how they are going to finance life post-Qaddafi though.

I wasn't trying to be snarky there; you have been a pretty strong critic, you must admit. I thought it was a valid point raised when people were criticizing possible negative outcomes, and I'm not surprised to see it starting to manifest. I personally hope that the nations highlighted (and raising the concern) are coordinating effectively to reduce the impacts.

I never viewed this as a strictly humanitarian mission either. The idea of "humanitarian bombs" seems a bit much of an oxymoron to me. I think there are strong humanitarian motivations though (although I don't think motivations are exclusively humanitarian).

At this point there is an EU mission in Bengazi, the Libyan transitional council has been holding international meetings and the media is embeded with front line forces both on the Eastern and Western fronts and largely seem to have free access to all rebel controlled areas ... at what stage can it be said the world community has gotten to know the rebels?

And Quinn, speaking of Rule

we are stardust — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 17:59:29 +0000

In reply to "This view apparently makes

And Quinn, speaking of Rule of Law, a trip down memory lane...with Emptywheel.

Totally agreed. I'm just not

kgb999 — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 17:27:58 +0000

In reply to I'm not convinced it will be

Totally agreed. I'm just not seeing it yet ... hoping not to.

"This view apparently makes

we are stardust — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 16:38:08 +0000

In reply to The people who are prissy

"This view apparently makes me a bad person. ;-) " Well, yes dear; but only at dagworld.

But thanks for unwinding it for me; I had thought you had meant those of us who reference the Rule of Law when we object to assassinations, whether of leaders or targeted drone kills, whatever, and assumed we didn't care about collateral civilian deaths, etc.

Mike Mullen warned Obama and the world that a no-fly zone wouldn't solve anything, but would lead to a stalemate, and that was March 20. We have no idea what the conversations were like that led to step by step mission creep, but some of the NATO leaders and heads of state began parsing their words pretty carefully, and it seemed some of them had agreed that killing Gadaffi was one way out. There have been plenty of bombs dropped on his residences, and I don't buy the 'command and control centers in residential areas'. Why? The man had decades of ultimate power with no one breathing down his neck, so I can't see building pockets of command in urban houses. They're killing his family members.

I'm just sick of the coy language they use; maybe some of the indirect threats they hope will cause the Gadaffis of the world to abdicate, but given that the man's full-blown psychotic, they might have guessed who they were dealing with. And the idea that the West can decide who should get snuffed is pretty abhorrent to me, as though we're the Good Guys and can make the call.

But now the Libyan Oil MInister has gone to Italy, and says he'll throw in with the provisional government. Hmmm. What does that signal?

And our eyes are on this prize and Anthony Weiner's weiner, and Afghanistan is blowing up and costing more: lives, bad-will, money, oh, god; and protesting Iraqis are being killed by Malaki's forces with no interference from the 100,000 troops we have there....

Do I seem depressed? Yep; I am. And I'm pissed as hell, too.

I'm not convinced it will be

quinn esq — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 15:19:27 +0000

In reply to I'm not as convinced the

I'm not convinced it will be long either. I've been hoping from the start that we peel off the inner circle and the key tribes from around Gaddafi, and wrap this thing the hell up. The problem is, there's no guarantee on that, and every day it lasts means more death, which means more anger afterward, more retaliation, etc. From my understanding of tribal and clannish societies, and the whole "honour" thing that we psycho Scots carry around as well, if this thing gets in and gets nasty, then it could run and run and run. That's all. Right now, I have no idea if it'll end tomorrow or never.