-
The Cable
Rand Paul: You’re Arming al Qaeda’s Allies
-
War of Ideas
No, 3-D Printing Won’t End Hunger
-
Passport
Why Does the U.S. Get All the Tornadoes?
Posted By Josh Rogin
Thursday, March 17, 2011 - 8:11 PM
Share
Several administration officials held a classified briefing for all senators on Thursday afternoon in the bowels of the Capitol building, leaving lawmakers convinced President Barack Obama is ready to attack Libya but wondering if it isn't too late to help the rebels there.
Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Bill Burns led the briefing and was accompanied by Alan Pino, National Intelligence Officer for the Near East, Gen. John Landry, National Intelligence Officer for Military Issues, Nate Tuchrello, National Intelligence Manager for Near East, Rear Adm. Michael Rogers, Director of Intelligence for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Rear Admiral Kurt Tidd, Vice Director of Operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Several senators emerged from the briefing convinced that the administration was intent on beginning military action against the forces of Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi within the next few days and that such action would include both a no-fly zone as well as a "no-drive zone" to prevent Qaddafi from crushing the rebel forces, especially those now concentrated in Benghazi.
"It looks like we have Arab countries ready to participate in a no-fly and no-drive endeavor," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told reporters after the briefing.
Asked what he learned from the briefing, Graham said, "I learned that it's not too late, that the opposition forces are under siege but they are holding, and that with a timely intervention, a no-fly zone and no-drive zone, we can turn this thing around."
Asked exactly what the first wave of attacks would look like, Graham said, "We ground his aircraft and some tanks start getting blown up that are headed toward the opposition forces."
As for when the attacks would start, he said "We're talking days, not weeks, and I'm hoping hours, not days," adding that he was told the U.N. Security Council resolution would be crafted to give the international community the authority to be "outcome determinant" and "do whatever's necessary."
The Security Council adopted the resolution on Thursday evening by a vote of 10-0 with 5 abstentions.
Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) told reporters that he expected the military operations to be run out of Sicily, where NATO Base Sigonella and U.S. Naval Air Station Sigonella are located.
"I know we have naval assets that are some distance away, so this would have to be U.S. Air Force Europe that would have the majority load for the time being, if the order is given," said Kirk.
Inside the briefing, several senators asked questions about how quickly the no-fly zone could be implemented, whether that was enough to stop Qaddafi's forces, what other military options might be used, and whether the administration had waited too long to act.
"There were concerns about the protection of civilians and one of those concerns was, is it too late," one Senate staffer who was in the meeting told The Cable.
Both Graham and Kirk said that they believed it was not too late, but that the success of the mission depended on super-quick implementation.
"It seems that the administration is moving and now the only question is time," said Kirk. "A lot still depends on the rebels at the very least holding Benghazi. If they do, there may be time for the international political system to respond. If they collapse quickly, no."
Graham and Kirk both said that they had thrown their support behind Obama's new Libya policy.
"I want to take back criticism I gave to them yesterday and say, ‘you are doing the right thing,'" said Graham. "My money is on the American Air Force, the American Navy, and our allies to contain the Libyans, and anybody on our side that says we can't contain the Libyan air threat -- I want them fired."
But Obama lost longtime supporter Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) who said in Thursday morning's hearing with Burns that any military intervention in Libya should require a formal declaration of war by the U.S. Congress.
Lugar also opposes military intervention in Libya on the grounds that the nation can't afford it at a time of deep fiscal debt and called on Obama to explain why attacking Libya is in America's national interest. The humanitarian argument just isn't enough, he said.
"We would not like to stand by and see people being shot, but the same argument could be made in Bahrain at present and perhaps in Yemen, so if you have a civil war it's very likely people are going to be out for each other," Lugar told The Cable in an interview. "This debate cannot be totally divorced from the realities of what are the contending issues right here and now."
But Graham responded to Lugar's caution in an interview with The Cable, saying that the risk of doing nothing and allowing Qaddafi to remain in power after Obama said "he must go" is far greater than that of getting involved militarily.
"They have my authorization. You can't have 535 commander in chiefs," Graham said. "I would like to have a vote in the floor when we get back saying they did the right thing. But that shouldn't restrict the president from taking timely action."
At Thursday morning's hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Air Force Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz said that Qaddafi's forces had reestablished control over large swaths of territory and that the Libyan leader had tens of planes and hundreds of helicopters in use.
He called the plan to impose a no-fly zone in a few days "overly optimistic" and said "it would take upwards of a week."
Schwartz was also clear that while the U.S. military can impose a no-fly zone, that's not likely to stop Qaddafi all by itself. He also noted that to do so effectively might require diverting some resources from the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"The question is, is a no-fly zone the last step or is it the first step?" Schwartz said.
Asked by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) whether a no-fly zone could turn the momentum, Scwartz replied, "A no-fly zone, sir, would not be sufficient."
Two points on Sen Graham's comments
1. Sen Graham seems to think the goal is regime change. The goal is to protect civilians. If the resolution is honored, and the Libyan authorities have a plan to retake their lost territory by attacking armed groups and protecting civilians, the US has no business interfering. If you don't like it, get a new resolution.
2. "...the risk of doing nothing and allowing Qaddafi to remain in power after Obama said "he must go" is far greater than that of getting involved militarily."
If a President can effectively commit the nation to war by an ill-chosen phrase, where the nation would not otherwise have been so committed, then uttering such threats should be impeachable.
The purpose of this no-fly resolution is to degrade Libyan capabilities regardless of the local outcome. Europe and the Arab states want Libya's fangs removed. They are nervous about whatever regime will prevail or follow. Watch now and see if Libya's SAM sites, Air Force and armored forces are systematically destroyed. That is the true purpose. Bravo Clinton.
I agree, thanks for hitting itnright on the money. Oil that we don't use is the real reason. There is no love for America and were to late. Another mess
Thanks for Sharon your insite
how this guys see only this from a pure US perspective : only the US can do the job militarily (formally with the usual suppletives) and of course Daffy and his 25 obsolete MIGs is a formidable adversary.
In reality maybe 80% of the forces mobilized today were non-US with an overwhelming European participation, and the political leadership Franco-British
And Daffy just surrendered, Benghazi was saved without a single shot being fired. It will probably still need monitoring and probably some strikes if Daffy gets out of control again. But so far, so good.
but Sen Graham is at least right, the goal is regime change. Sorry Ron.
Frenchconnection
Oh, I know the goal of the administration is regime change, but the goal of the UN Resolution is not.
I see you're talking about Benghazi - tell me, would it have been ok with you if Gadaffi took the same measures against Benghazi as the US marines took against Fallujah? You know, surround the city, allow only women and children to leave, then kill everyone that remains, using a variety of weapons including White Phosphorus? Presumably you were thinking something worse than that was going to happen in Benghazi? Or is it that getting revenge on a city for killing some mercenaries is more important than for the government of a nation to regain control of its territory, and so more extreme methods are acceptable?
As far as following procedures that pass Constitutional muster for committing American military forces to combat operations, I think I'd listen to Richard Lugar before I would Lindsey Graham.
With that said, the easiest and cheapest way to keep the rebels around Benghazi from being crushed is to get Gadhafi to halt his forces in place and accept a ceasefire. Unless he thinks he might be attacked by American and allied forces, he won't do that.
A bluff can't work if it looks like a bluff. I do not myself favor injecting the United States into another Arab civil war, but recognize that standing by and letting thousands of people be massacred is not a great outcome either. In Obama's place, bluffing is what I might do.
"I do not myself favor injecting the United States into another Arab civil war, but recognize that standing by and letting thousands of people be massacred is not a great outcome either."
Isn't that exactly what the world did in the rest of Africa?
I agree with SIZELY. The population growth of militant Muslims in West European countries is outpacing the non-Muslims. When they rise up such as they eventually will in France or England and the elected government must resort to military force to retain sovereignty, will we interfere then also? The same has been occurring in sub-Saharan countries for decades and we have not interfered.
Beware of unintended consequences. If Qaddafi wins, he kicks out the west and allies with Russia, China and India. If the rebels win, a Muslim Brotherhood group will take over sooner or later as in Lebanon, Gaza, and the West Bank. Iran and now Turkey, for two months, are controlled by militant Muslims. Yemen, Bahrain, Morocco and the Ivory Coast are at risk.
Considering Obama’s close lifelong affiliation with Muslims, his delay of conversion until age 27, his familial anti-colonial based hatred for England, his hatred for Israel as he has repeatedly demonstrated, his administration’s two year training and preparation of militants to overthrow Egypt, does he have a secret plan for Libya? At the start of his administration, he gave speeches to large audiences in Egypt and Germany. Is he now working for the overthrow of Germany? What does Merkel know?
Considering the astonishing inanity and lack of factual accuracy in Ray Mark's final paragraph, I would suggest that he is clearly far too ignorant to be paid attention to. Yes, yes, we all know that lying righties love to throw out these ridiculous nonsensical charges against Obama, but it's nothing but dumb-assed ignorance-based hate-speech and partisan head-up-the-ass stupidity.
Well said, DesertDavey. The irrational Obama hatred among some on the far right really does seem to effect their mental functioning at times. I would suggest, however, that you might try making these points without the insults. In my experience, insulting the astonishingly stupid only makes them dig in even deeper!
‘Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.’
DESERTDAVEY:
All statements in the last paragraph have been reported in Obama’s bio and various news reports. If you only watch MSM then you may have missed their brief, if any, mention. There are many links supporting every statement. I think they demonstrate who really makes dumb-assed ignorance-based hate-speech and exhibit partisan head-up-the-ass stupidity. I would suggest that you are clearly far too ignorant to be paid attention to. We all know that lying leftists love to spray insults and make nonsensical statements defending their savior.
BIO with over 300 references: ~http://colony14.net/id41.html
~http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/03/barack_obama_and_israel_1.html
~http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/klein-soros-fingerprints-on-morocco-riots-philanthropist-also-tied-to-revolts-against-other-u-s-allies-across-mideast-north-africa/
~http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/17/obamas-anti-israel-agenda/
~http://publicintelligence.net/u-s-government-worked-with-egyptian-activists-to-form-unwritten-plan-for-democratic-transition-in-2011/
~http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=205706
`http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/04/obama-egypt-speech-video_n_211216.html
~http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/24/obama.words/
Einstein – ‘Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.’
You raise some excellent points and questions.
Unless you think Bluster is a Foreign Policy !
I think not !
If Bush was in charge we would or should have taken Qaddafi out as soon as he started killing his own people!
If protesters in Wisconsin take up arms and start killing people, would the UN impose a no-fly zone over the US? Once you pick up a weapon against the ruling government, you are not a “protester”, you are a military combatant, a terorist, an anarchist, etc. Why are we (and the UN) supporting armed and violent revolt? This is no way to conduct ourselves. When the Tea party gets pissed off at all the government theft of our hard earned dollars or teachers start shooting, our own government will shoot back. HYPOCRITS!
The UN wasn't created to be a world cop
Exactly. The UN was created as a forum for its members, who are sovereign nations states, to resolve issues between them. It was not created to be a world cop for issues within sovereign member countries.
Lets not be childish. This mass murdering Gaddifi must be brought to justice.
With the support of the Security Council, every "adult" knows that this was done to remove him from power...and the youth, the active rebels and others yearning to be free and not slaughtered will actively support both the US and others who come to their assistance. Thank goodness nations are deciding to help those who hour after hour and being killed. Why is it the defacto position of liberals to always put their philosophy above pro-actively helping those students and repressed citizens for over 42 long years are being killed while they argue the merits of a university based philosophy Vs. dealing with the real world. My how their opinion would change if this blood thirsty, power hungry tyrant were bearing down upon their homes and their families...
What is our national interest?
"and the youth, the active rebels and others yearning to be free and not slaughtered will actively support both the US and others who come to their assistance."
Like in Iran?
What is our national interest?
Why are we so eager to jump in and fight another war? I say leave them to their own devices with the help of the other Muslim countries who have armies and fighter jets. I for one am tired of putting our warriors lives on the line for people who continue to hate us no matter what we do for them! And just who are these rebels? They are being helped by Egypt. Are they backed by the Muslim Brotherhood or Al Quaeda? We only find that out after we have armed them to the teeth and then they turn on us eventually. These people are truly over the edge with their religion and Shariah Law. Polls have said that the majority of the Muslim countries want an Islamic state with Shariah law. I say if you want it go for it without our help. These Arab nations have more money than we do so it won't be hard for them to pull it off. We should be pulling out of Iran and Afghanistan and fortifying our own country because you know they will be stepping up efforts to come after even more. So don't kid yourself. Let the UN do the job they were created for and start intervening without our boots on the ground. Enough is enough.
Has the free world finally found a Muslin country weak enough for him to whip-up on... and they are pursuing the prospect with glee.
What would each of these European country's and the USA do if a bunch of thugs started killing their military people and burning and destroying their country??
This is in keeping with the administration's policy of promoting and accepting the outcome of mob rule - as long as they themselves are not the target of a mob.
at least we wont have a problem getting muslin in the future.
One word "AFRICOMM"
"WAR PLANS" ???
What is our national interest?
Didn't Obama object to removing Saddam, who killed his own people, because we have no national interest? Hasn't he said he is opposed to regime change (though already acted completely differently) ?
Did a NATO member nation get attacked?
How many Americans lost their lives when we involved ourselves in a civil war in Lebanon?
Presidential statements are only important when made to whom?
Senator Graham, the President also said that we would have more transparency in government, and we have less. The President has said that we would close Gitmo, and we will not. The President said that we would be able to keep our medical plans and doctors, and we will not. The President also said that we must reduce spending, but spending continues to increase.
Why aren't you willing to enforce those other things the President has said to the American people?
wasn't this supposed to be classified? does congress or whoever it is, have the right to spill our plans? doesn't someone get hanged from the yardarm? or is this just backchannel pr?
World Should not attack libya, it will create another Iraq, and just like it happened there, West will experience critics and non popularity later. Islamic terrorists may get provoked even though Arab league is in favour of no flying zone in Libya, but still you never know there ideology.
~With Regards
Sanskar
(http://www.theworldreporter.com/)
John Hudson reports on national security and foreign policy from the Pentagon to Foggy Bottom, the White House to Embassy Row, for The Cable.
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(26)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE