For weeks Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and other administration officials have been warning of an economic “catastrophe” if the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling, which caps the amount Washington can borrow, is not raised by August 2.

Merriam-Webster dictionary defines catastrophe as “a momentous tragic event ranging from extreme misfortune to utter overthrow or ruin.”

That definition appears to chime with the view of most economists, who agree that a U.S. default on its obligations would plunge the United States into a new recession and send shockwaves through international financial markets.

In interviews, speeches and news conferences, administration officials have used the word again and again. But instead of scaring Republicans into action and breaking deadlocked debt talks it has had the opposite effect.

Republican lawmakers accuse the Obama administration of scaremongering and many refuse to budge from their firm belief that a default will not happen, that the United States can keep paying its creditors simply by cutting back on spending.

Americans also do not appear to share the Obama administration’s sense of doom. Polls show a majority of Americans are happy for the debt ceiling not to be raised, although its not clear that those being surveyed are fully aware of the consequences of such a step.

WHEN CATASTROPHE IS NOT ENOUGH

So, the White House has upped the ante, eschewing catastrophe for a word more reminiscent of the “Cold War” stand-off between a nuclear-armed Soviet Union and United States — Armageddon.

Obama used the biblical reference last week at a White House news conference when he talked about a complicated Republican plan that seeks to pin the blame for raising the debt ceiling on him. He said then it could avert economic Armageddon.

Obama’s budget director, Jack Lew, repeated it during a television interview on Sunday.

“Notwithstanding the voices of a few who are willing play with Armageddon, responsible leaders in Washington are not, he told ABC’s “This Week” program.

To be fair, it was a Republican, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, who first warned way back in April the debt ceiling negotiations would be a cataclysmic event, although at the time her warning was dismissed by many in Washington as hyperbole.

“The debt ceiling is going to be Armageddon,” she said, trying to explain that while a just-ended budget dispute between Republicans and Obama had brought the government to the brink of a shutdown, the debt talks would be even worse.

Merriam-Webster’s definition makes clear that while a catastrophe would be bad enough, Armageddon would be positively apocalyptic: “The site or time of a final and conclusive battle between the forces of good and evil; a usually vast decisive conflict or confrontation.”

(Editing by Todd Eastham)

President Ali Abdullah Saleh, in power for three decades, has allowed U.S. forces to conduct clandestine operations, including unmanned aerial drone strikes, against a Yemeni offshoot of al Qaeda that American officials say poses a profound threat to U.S. national security.

Now, after weeks of unrelenting anti-government protests, violent crackdowns and defections among the ruling elite, Saleh is under pressure to step down now and there are fears Yemen could break apart.

Libya may be dominating headlines but it is not a strategic priority for Obama in the war against terrorism, as Yemen is. One of his greatest fears is another Sept. 11-style al Qaeda attack on U.S. soil, and Yemen is a possible launchpad.

While the U.S. military is reluctantly spearheading a Western air campaign against Muammar Gaddafi’s forces in Libya, U.S. counter-terrorism officials stress that the most pressing issue for the United States is the potential collapse of Yemen, which could jeopardize efforts to stop al Qaeda using the country as a safe haven.

The Yemen group, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, claimed responsibility for a failed Christmas Day attack in 2009 aboard a U.S. airliner and an attempt in October to blow up two U.S.-bound cargo planes with parcels packed with explosives.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Tuesday the United States was alarmed about the instability in Yemen — which borders Saudi Arabia, the world’s biggest oil exporter — and its potential impact on the fight against militants.

If Saleh succumbs to pressure to leave office or is ousted, the United States may have little sway with his successor.

“I don’t think we know after he leaves who will take his spot and I don’t know if who takes his spot will share our priorities,” said Chris Boucek, a Yemen expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.

Another complication: Obama is seen by many Yemenis to have supported Saleh through weeks of pro-democracy protests. Obama made his strongest statement on the crisis only on Friday, when he condemned shootings by snipers that killed 52 protesters.

Analysts said Obama’s team may have miscalculated in not adopting a tougher stance toward Saleh earlier on, relying instead on cautious statements that sought to balance concern about the violence with calls to the protesters to negotiate.

NO OBVIOUS SUCCESSOR

“The stance it has taken is really going to put them in a difficult position with any post-Saleh government,” said Gregory Johnsen, a Yemen expert at Princeton University.

The Obama administration, struggling to keep up with a wave of unrest in the region that has already unseated friendly autocratic rulers in Tunisia and Egypt, will likely struggle with a post-Saleh strategy because there are so many unknowns.

“Every time Washington has attempted to game out what would come after Saleh, it came up empty,” Johnsen said.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Congressional Research Service said in a 48-page research paper to lawmakers that “currently, there is no real consensus alternative to President Saleh.”

Saleh has been an erratic partner but compliant enough to agree to conceal U.S. air strikes from Yemenis, according to U.S. diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks.

However, there have been no reported strikes since May 2010 when an errant air raid killed a deputy provincial governor who was mediating between the government and militants.

Obama authorized a major expansion of covert U.S. operations against al Qaeda militants based in Yemen several months before the failed Christmas Day attack in 2009, U.S. counter-terrorism officials said.

But the weakness of Saleh’s government has made it difficult for U.S. operatives to set up intelligence-gathering capabilities that would allow them to go beyond sporadic operations against militants.

With Saleh’s government now breaking apart, the expansion of secret U.S. operations against the militants will become even more problematic.

U.S. intelligence officials said on Tuesday there was already evidence of this as it appeared Yemen’s anti-terrorism forces had been diverted to deal with the unrest in Sanaa.

A U.S. national security official familiar with Yemen said while intelligence agencies see “no obvious successor” to Saleh, there may be some hope of future partners among senior Yemeni officials who have defected to anti-Saleh groups.

Some of the defecting officials “may have had ties to extremists in the past,” the security official told Reuters. “But the past is the past.”

(Editing by John O’Callaghan and Philip Barbara)

The White House said the United States would send civilian
disaster relief teams to rebel-held eastern Libya to help with
humanitarian efforts but stressed they would not be accompanied
by military or security personnel.

As Washington, NATO and the United Nations search for the
best way forward, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she
would meet members of Libya’s opposition groups but warned of
“a situation whose consequences are unforeseeable” if the
United States were to act on its own. [ID:nN10137653]

Critics of the Obama administration’s stance on Libya are
pushing for more forceful intervention, including direct
military aid to outgunned rebel groups made up of enthusiastic
but ill-trained civilians and dissident soldiers.

Obama has scheduled a news conference on Friday at 11:15
a.m. EST (1615 GMT). The White House said he would address
issues including rising energy prices. He is certain to face
questions about the turmoil in Libya.

The top U.S. spy official, noting Gaddafi’s forces were
better equipped and disciplined than the opposition, said
eventually “the regime will prevail.”

National Intelligence Director James Clapper’s comments at
a Senate hearing caught the White House off guard and led one
Republican lawmaker to call for his dismissal for
“undercutting” U.S. efforts to remove Gaddafi.

President Barack Obama’s national security adviser, Tom
Donilon, criticized Clapper’s analysis as “a static and
one-dimensional assessment.”

<^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

TAKE A LOOK-Unrest in N. Africa, Mideast [ID:nLDE71O2CH]

SCENARIOS-Few obvious answers to dilemma [ID:nN10146807]

ANALYSIS-Obama faces no good choices [ID:nN08154365]

Graphic link.reuters.com/dew48r

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^>

He said it placed too much emphasis on Gaddafi’s military
strength and did not take into account other factors, such as
the international efforts to isolate him.

Clapper said without a decisive victory by either side, it
was possible the North African oil-producing country could
break into two or more semi-autonomous states, with Gaddafi
retaining control of the capital, Tripoli, and its environs,
and the rebels holding on to the eastern city of Benghazi.

Testifying at the same hearing, the head of U.S. military
intelligence, Lieutenant General Ronald Burgess, said Gaddafi
“seems to have staying power, unless some other dynamic changes
at this time.”

NO CONSENSUS ON ACTION

As Clapper and Burgess delivered their assessments, NATO
defense ministers meeting in Brussels shied away from direct
military intervention while agreeing to move warships closer to
Libya and continuing to plan for all options.

Despite the sense of caution, analysts say the United
States and its allies may be forced to intervene if attacks by
Gaddafi’s forces result in heavy civilian casualties.

Recent successes appear to have emboldened Gaddafi, with
his most prominent son telling Reuters that loyalists were
preparing a full-scale offensive. [ID:nSGE7290C9]

“It’s time for action,” Saif al-Islam Gaddafi said. “The
Libyan people, we will never ever welcome NATO, we will never
ever welcome Americans here. Libya is not a piece of cake.”

Clapper’s view that Gaddafi’s forces had the upper hand and
looked set to prevail led to renewed calls for Obama to take
swift action to help the rebels.

“If the head of our intelligence community says, left
alone, Gaddafi will not only not go but will defeat the
opponents, then it seems to me to make it even more urgent to
do something,” said Senator Joe Lieberman, an independent.

Even though Lieberman, Democratic Senator John Kerry and
Republican Senator John McCain are among those pressing for a
“no-fly” zone over Libya and other military steps, there is no
consensus on Capitol Hill about what to do. [ID:nN1040659]

If Gaddafi does survive and hold on to Tripoli, that could
hurt Obama politically. The president would face accusations
from Republicans that he allowed a dictator to stay in power
and signaled to other autocrats in the region that using force
to crush dissent does not carry consequences.

U.S. national security officials have told Reuters the
Obama administration is deeply resistant to any military
involvement in Libya, including arming the rebels.

It fears becoming entangled in a third Middle East war and
giving al Qaeda a propaganda coup, the officials say.

Even sending the disaster relief teams is not without
danger. Rebels briefly imprisoned a British diplomatic team
last week, embarrassing London.

Clinton, who has said the U.N. Security Council must back
any intervention in Libya, also echoed warnings by Defense
Secretary Robert Gates about the limits of a no-fly zone.

“We had a no-fly zone over Iraq. It did not prevent Saddam
Hussein from slaughtering people on the ground and it did not
get him out of office,” Clinton said.

Clapper said Gaddafi had about 80 operational aircraft — a
mix of helicopters, transport aircraft and fighter jets. The
warplanes were struggling to “shoot straight” because they were
relying on visual, rather than computer, targeting and had not
caused very many casualties, he said.

The spy chief said Libya had the second-largest air defense
system in the Middle East, with about 31 surface-to-air missile
sites and a large number of portable surface-to-air missiles.
(Additional reporting by Alister Bull, Susan Cornwell, Andrew
Quinn, Paul Eckert, Mark Hosenball and Tabassum Zakaria;
Writing by Ross Colvin; Editing by John O’Callaghan and Peter
Cooney)

National Intelligence Director James Clapper gave his assessment as the United States and its NATO allies debated in Brussels over how to support Libyan opposition groups who have suffered a series of military setbacks.

Clapper, who oversees all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, told U.S. lawmakers the rebels, who include civilians and dissident military units, were in for a “tough roll.”

He told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Gaddafi’s forces were better equipped and had more logistical resources, and “over longer-term, that the regime will prevail.”

Military analysts say the rebels, although relatively well armed, cannot match the firepower of Gaddafi’s forces and lack the training to use the weapons they have seized from weapons depots. They are also disorganized and fragmented, with little real leadership.

“Gaddafi intentionally designed the military so that those select units loyal to him are the most luxuriously equipped and (are) the best-trained and that is having a telling effect with the rebels,” Clapper said.

“We believe that Gaddafi is in this for the long haul,” he said. “He appears to be hunkering down for the duration.”

Libyan tanks fired on rebel positions around the oil port of Ras Lanuf and warplanes hit another oil hub farther east on Thursday as Gaddafi’s forces carried counter-attacks deeper into the insurgent heartland.

Clapper’s warning that Gaddafi may prevail is likely to increase political pressure on President Barack Obama in Washington to do more to help the rebels force the Libyan leader from power.

The U.S. president has called on Gaddafi to step down but he has been wary of entangling the United States in a new war in the Muslim world. The United States still has 100,000 troops in Afghanistan and 50,000 in Iraq.

Prominent lawmakers including Democratic Senator John Kerry and Republican Senator John McCain have been pressing the administration to impose a “no-fly” zone over Libya to ground Gaddafi’s warplanes and explore other military options, such as bombing runways to stop aircraft taking off.

U.S. COOL ON NO-FLY ZONE

The Obama administration has been cool to a no-fly zone, cautioning that it would be difficult to implement and would likely not stop Gaddafi from using low-flying attack helicopters and ground troops. They also stress that any such intervention should have international backing.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned Thursday that any unilateral U.S. action on Libya could have “unforeseeable consequences.”

In Brussels, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said any NATO military action would require a demonstrable need, a clear mandate and support in the region.

McCain questioned Clapper at the Senate hearing about the logistics of imposing a no-fly zone over Libya.

The spy chief said Libya had the second-largest air defense system in the Middle East, with about 31 surface-to-air missile sites and a large number of portable surface-to-air missiles. There were concerns that the latter could fall into the wrong hands, he said.

Clapper said Gaddafi had about 80 operational aircraft — a mix of helicopters, transport aircraft and fighter jets.

The warplanes had been involved in the fighting but had been struggling to “shoot straight” because they were relying on visual, rather than computer, targeting. The air strikes had not caused “very many casualties,” he said.

(Additional reporting by Andrew Quinn, Paul Eckert and Tabassum Zakaria; Editing by Doina Chiacu)

As President Barack Obama’s top advisers met to debate what
to do next, Muammar Gaddafi’s forces halted a rebel advance in
the east of the oil-producing North African country and
opposition forces suffered setbacks in the west.

A range of options were on the table in the White House
situation room, including a “no-fly” zone to ground Gaddafi’s
warplanes, although U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has
already warned of the difficulties of such an action.

With Libyan rebels fragmented and disorganized and
Gaddafi’s forces successfully counter-attacking, the Obama
administration has been struggling to craft a strategy that
forces Gaddafi from power without entangling the United States
in a new war in the Muslim world.

Despite its fear that Libya could become what Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton last week called a “giant Somalia,”
Washington is reluctant to intervene militarily in a messy
civil war, especially since the United Nations, NATO and
countries in the region are divided on what should be done.

White House spokesman Jay Carney dismissed suggestions that
Washington had failed to act with sufficient urgency.

“There has never been a situation where the international
community, with leadership by the United States, has acted as
quickly as it has to respond to this kind of situation,” he
said.

<^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

TAKE A LOOK-Unrest in N. Africa, Mideast [ID:nLDE71O2CH]

ANALYSIS-Obama faces no good choices [ID:nN08154365]

Graphics package r.reuters.com/nym77r

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^>

Clinton, CIA Director Leon Panetta, and the chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, attended
Wednesday’s meeting, but it was not expected to lead to any
immediate change in U.S. strategy, Carney said.

The White House session came ahead of Thursday’s meeting of
NATO defense ministers, including Gates, in Brussels. A U.S.
official said Libya options were being “teed up” for discussion
there. [ID:nLDE72824Y]

LIBYA VERSUS BALKANS

The United States, embroiled in wars in Afghanistan and
Iraq, has been stressing the need for international support for
any intervention in Libya. On Tuesday, Clinton said Washington
would not act without a U.N. Security Council resolution.

At the Security Council, where Britain and France are
pushing for a resolution authorizing a no-fly zone, diplomats
said the Americans had made clear they were not ready to press
ahead with the measure. [ID:nN09256133]

While the idea of a no-fly zone over Libya is popular among
some politicians in Washington, Obama administration officials
have voiced reservations about its effectiveness in stopping
attack helicopters and ground troops.

The White House has come under fire from some Republican
and Democratic politicians, conservative commentators and
others for what they say is its failure to match tough talk
with action to help rebels force Gaddafi from power.

“The Obama administration is throwing out so many
conflicting messages on Libya that they are blunting any
potential pressure on the Libyan regime and weakening American
credibility,” said an editorial in The New York Times, a
newspaper that is often supportive of Obama’s policies.

The administration has frozen $30 billion in Libyan assets,
backed U.N. sanctions, sent military transport aircraft to help
evacuate refugees from neighboring Tunisia and put warships off
the Libyan coast for possible humanitarian efforts.

“It is very important for people to understand the kind of
dramatic action that has been taken with the leadership of this
president and will continue to be taken as we move forward,”
Carney said.

He compared the international response to Libya with the
reaction to the Balkan wars of the 1990s. It took three months
to impose an arms embargo on Yugoslavia after Croatia declared
independence, he said. In the case of Libya, just nine days.

On Capitol Hill, lawmakers like Republican Senator John
McCain continued to call for U.S. military intervention. But
others warned against it, especially unilateral action

“I am of the opinion that it is not a good idea to give
weapons and military support to people who you do not know,”
said Senator Jim Webb, a Democrat and former secretary of the
U.S. Navy.
(Additional reporting by Louis Charbonneau in New York and
Phil Stewart, Jeff Mason, Susan Cornwell and Andrew Quinn in
Washington; Editing by John O’Callaghan and Todd Eastham)

“The Obama administration is throwing out so many conflicting messages on Libya that they are blunting any potential pressure on the Libyan regime and weakening American credibility,” said an editorial in The New York Times, a newspaper that is often supportive of Obama’s policies.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, CIA Director Leon Panetta, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen were meeting at the White House. Obama was not scheduled to attend.

The Obama administration has frozen $30 billion in Libyan assets, helped evacuate refugees and deployed warships off the Libyan coast for possible humanitarian efforts, but it has been hesitant to intervene militarily, especially without a resolution from the U.N. Security Council.

While the United States and its NATO allies debate their options, a counter-offensive by Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has halted a rebel advance in the east and left others stranded in Zawiyah and another western city, Misrata.

Republicans and Democrats, including influential Senator John Kerry, have urged Obama to do more to help the rebels but White House officials say the president does not want to be rushed into any decisions that could backfire and plunge the United States into another war.

While the United States is often called upon to respond decisively to crises, analysts say Libya is of minor strategic importance to Washington, which has much to lose by getting stuck in a prolonged conflict in North Africa.

MERITS OF NO-FLY ZONE

The idea of a “no-fly” zone to ground Gaddafi’s warplanes is especially popular among politicians in Washington and will likely be debated by NATO defense ministers, including U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in Brussels on Thursday.

Obama administration officials have been openly skeptical that a no-fly zone over Libya would work and have made clear that while it remains an option, it is not top of their list.

At the U.N. Security Council, where Britain and France are pushing for a resolution authorizing a no-fly zone, diplomats say the Americans have made clear they are not ready to press ahead with the measure.

The U.S. reluctance to lead the push for a no-fly zone — which U.S. officials say would require the bombing of Libya’s anti-aircraft defenses — was underscored on Tuesday in the White House’s statement about a telephone call between Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron.

The White House put a no-fly zone last on a list of the options it said the two leaders discussed — after aerial surveillance flights, humanitarian assistance and enforcement of the U.N. arms embargo on the oil-producing nation.

Critics say the Obama administration has failed to match its tough talk with action to turn the tide in favor of disorganized rebel groups who have failed to dislodge Gaddafi from his Tripoli stronghold.

Analysts said that Obama will be conscious that U.S. involvement in Libya, however tentative at first, carries huge political risks for him domestically.

Americans sent him a clear message in last November’s congressional elections, in which his Democrats suffered major losses. Voters want him to focus on creating jobs after the worst recession since the 1930s.

The Libyan crisis could yet be a factor in the 2012 U.S. presidential election. If higher fuel prices persist because of the turmoil there and elsewhere in the region, that could give opposition Republicans more ammunition against Obama.

U.S. retail gasoline prices have risen more than 10 percent over the past two weeks to an average of $3.52 a gallon, the second-largest two-week rise on record, and crude oil prices have shot up.

(Additional reporting by Louis Charbonneau in New York and Phil Stewart and Andrew Quinn in Washington; Editing by John O’Callaghan and Philip Barbara)

“The Obama administration is throwing out so many
conflicting messages on Libya that they are blunting any
potential pressure on the Libyan regime and weakening American
credibility,” said an editorial in The New York Times, a
newspaper that is often supportive of Obama’s policies.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, CIA Director Leon
Panetta, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral
Mike Mullen were meeting at the White House. Obama was not
scheduled to attend.

The Obama administration has frozen $30 billion in Libyan
assets, helped evacuate refugees and deployed warships off the
Libyan coast for possible humanitarian efforts, but it has been
hesitant to intervene militarily, especially without a
resolution from the U.N. Security Council.

<^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

TAKE A LOOK-Unrest in N. Africa, Mideast [ID:nLDE71O2CH]

ANALYSIS-Obama faces no good choices [ID:nN08154365]

Graphics package r.reuters.com/nym77r

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^>

While the United States and its NATO allies debate their
options, a counter-offensive by Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi
has halted a rebel advance in the east and left others stranded
in Zawiyah and another western city, Misrata.

Republicans and Democrats, including influential Senator
John Kerry, have urged Obama to do more to help the rebels but
White House officials say the president does not want to be
rushed into any decisions that could backfire and plunge the
United States into another war.

While the United States is often called upon to respond
decisively to crises, analysts say Libya is of minor strategic
importance to Washington, which has much to lose by getting
stuck in a prolonged conflict in North Africa.

MERITS OF NO-FLY ZONE

The idea of a “no-fly” zone to ground Gaddafi’s warplanes
is especially popular among politicians in Washington and will
likely be debated by NATO defense ministers, including U.S.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in Brussels on Thursday.

Obama administration officials have been openly skeptical
that a no-fly zone over Libya would work and have made clear
that while it remains an option, it is not top of their list.

At the U.N. Security Council, where Britain and France are
pushing for a resolution authorizing a no-fly zone, diplomats
say the Americans have made clear they are not ready to press
ahead with the measure.

The U.S. reluctance to lead the push for a no-fly zone –
which U.S. officials say would require the bombing of Libya’s
anti-aircraft defenses — was underscored on Tuesday in the
White House’s statement about a telephone call between Obama
and British Prime Minister David Cameron.

The White House put a no-fly zone last on a list of the
options it said the two leaders discussed — after aerial
surveillance flights, humanitarian assistance and enforcement
of the U.N. arms embargo on the oil-producing nation.

Critics say the Obama administration has failed to match
its tough talk with action to turn the tide in favor of
disorganized rebel groups who have failed to dislodge Gaddafi
from his Tripoli stronghold.

Analysts said that Obama will be conscious that U.S.
involvement in Libya, however tentative at first, carries huge
political risks for him domestically.

Americans sent him a clear message in last November’s
congressional elections, in which his Democrats suffered major
losses. Voters want him to focus on creating jobs after the
worst recession since the 1930s.

The Libyan crisis could yet be a factor in the 2012 U.S.
presidential election. If higher fuel prices persist because of
the turmoil there and elsewhere in the region, that could give
opposition Republicans more ammunition against Obama.

U.S. retail gasoline prices have risen more than 10 percent
over the past two weeks to an average of $3.52 a gallon, the
second-largest two-week rise on record, and crude oil prices
have shot up. [ID:nN07117191]
(Additional reporting by Louis Charbonneau in New York and
Phil Stewart and Andrew Quinn in Washington; Editing by John
O’Callaghan and Philip Barbara)

“It would be premature to send a bunch of weapons to a post office box in eastern Libya,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said. “We need to not get ahead of ourselves in terms of the options we’re pursuing.”

The Obama administration faces sharp criticism, especially from Republican lawmakers and conservative commentators, for its cautious approach to the turmoil in Libya but has signaled it will not be rushed into hasty decisions that could suck the military into a new war and fuel anti-American sentiment.

One major obstacle: officials are still trying to identify the main actors within the opposition groups fighting to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. The aims of these groups are unclear, including what type of government they might set up if Gaddafi falls, the officials say.

President Barack Obama said on Monday he wanted to “send a very clear message to the Libyan people that we will stand with them in the face of unwarranted violence and the continuing suppression of democratic ideals that we’ve seen there.”

The White House has long said all options are on the table over Libya but, on Monday for the first time, it gave a vague priority to the possible military steps being studied.

Bottom of the list is sending in ground troops, Carney told a briefing. A “no-fly” zone, an idea popular with lawmakers, is being “actively” discussed within NATO, while possibly arming the rebels is also in the mix, he said.

Brian Katulis, a Middle East expert who has informally advised the White House on the turmoil sweeping the region, said the Obama administration is constrained by its reluctance to act militarily without international support.

The calls from lawmakers for more action would create a “little bit of pressure” on the White House, he said, but not enough to force a course of action it sees as perilous.

CONSENSUS ELUSIVE

Defense Secretary Robert Gates reiterated on Monday that any intervention in Libya would require broad backing.

“At this point there is a sense that any action should be the result of international sanction,” he said during a trip to Afghanistan.

Underscoring the lack of consensus, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Moscow opposed military intervention. China, a fellow veto-wielding member of the U.N. Security Council, has expressed similar misgivings.

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said on Monday the alliance would intervene only if the U.N. Security Council called for it.

The United States has deployed two amphibious assault ships off the Libyan coast, ostensibly to help with any humanitarian emergencies, while dispatching military transport aircraft to airlift stranded Egyptian refugees from neighboring Tunisia.

Over the weekend, leading Republican and Democratic senators urged Obama to do more to help Libya’s rebels, who have fought Gaddafi’s security forces to a standstill in some areas but are facing repeated air strikes.

Mitch McConnell, the top Republican in the Senate, said one option was “simply aiding and arming the insurgents,” noting that the United States often did this during the Cold War.

John Kerry, the influential chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who is close to Obama, repeated his call for a no-fly zone and floated another idea — bombing Libyan runways to ground Gaddafi’s warplanes.

Pentagon spokesman Colonel Dave Lapan cautioned that a limited strike on runways would not stop helicopter gunships from taking off. Helicopters were reported to have been involved in air strikes against rebels at the weekend.

Senator John McCain said he favored providing intelligence and technical assistance to the rebels and declaring U.S. support for a provisional Libyan government.

(Additional reporting by Caren Bohan, Matt Spetalnick and Susan Cornwell; Editing by John O’Callaghan and Cynthia Osterman)

WHAT COULD TRIGGER U.S. MILITARY INTERVENTION?

Possibly a major jump in the death toll. Analysts say massacres of civilians, aerial bombing of civilian targets or a concerted military offensive by Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi to retake rebel-held territory could be possible triggers.

While the Obama administration is sensitive to criticism that it has been slow to respond more forcefully to Gaddafi’s bloody crackdown on opponents, it has made clear it will not be rushed into making any hasty decisions.

Media reports of aerial bombing of civilians have helped drive calls for international military intervention but Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Tuesday the United States has so far been unable to confirm them.

Two U.S. amphibious assault ships are now sailing toward Libya but U.S. officials have stressed they are being sent to help with possible humanitarian efforts. Marines on board could be used to help protect any international aid mission.

For now, the United States appears to be content with symbolic shows of military strength and seizing a record $30 billion in Libyan assets.

COULD THE U.S. TAKE UNILATERAL MILITARY ACTION?

U.S. officials have all but ruled that out. The Obama administration has repeatedly stressed it is working with NATO member states and the United Nations Security Council.

There is no Security Council resolution authorizing the use of armed force and there is no agreement within NATO for military intervention, Gates said.

With 47,000 U.S. troops still in Iraq and some 100,000 in Afghanistan, the Obama administration has no desire to become embroiled in yet another costly war that would only fuel anti-American sentiment in the Arab world. Arab states have already warned against foreign intervention in Libya.

Gates, who has spearheaded a drive to cut the military budget to help cut a record U.S. deficit, said moving additional U.S. forces closer to Libya could have consequences for the war in Afghanistan.

WHAT FORM COULD INTERVENTION TAKE?

No one is talking about putting U.S. troops on the ground but there have been widespread calls for a “no-fly” zone to be imposed to prevent Gaddafi from using warplanes or attack helicopters to strafe rebels on the ground.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said the United States and its NATO allies are actively considering such a step but the Pentagon has been cool to the idea, highlighting the many challenges of enforcing a no-fly zone.

Air strikes would be needed first to destroy Libya’s anti-aircraft defenses, Gates pointed out on Wednesday.

“Let’s just call a spade a spade,” he bluntly told lawmakers. “A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya to destroy the air defenses … and then you can fly planes around the country and not worry about our guys being shot down.”

Analysts question the effectiveness of a no-fly zone since Gaddafi appears to be relying mainly on ground forces. Enforcing the ban would also require hundreds of aircraft.

A rebel group in east Libya calling itself the National Libyan Council wants U.N.-backed air strikes on foreign mercenaries reportedly being used by Gaddafi.

But the United States will be wary of such calls as it is still trying to identify who’s who in the mishmash of opposition groups taking part in the revolt against Gaddafi.

It says there are no immediate plans to arm the rebel groups, who already appear to be relatively well equipped with weapons seized from military arms depots or defecting soldiers, including tanks and anti-aircraft weapons.

WHAT ARE THE OBSTACLES TO INTERVENTION?

While setting up a no-fly zone may sound like an attractive option because of the limited potential for casualties, what happens if fails to halt Gaddafi’s attacks?

“If that doesn’t work, are you then going to send in the Marines?” said Bruce Riedel, a former senior Middle expert at the CIA who has advised President Barack Obama on the war in Afghanistan.

The popular protests against Gaddafi’s rule appear to have evolved into a near civil war that has already cost the Libyan leader great swaths of his country. Helping unarmed protesters is one thing, taking sides in a civil war quite another.

The U.N. Security Council also appears unlikely to authorize the use of force. Veto-wielding member China has already expressed misgivings about a no-fly zone.

WHAT IS WASHINGTON DOING ON HUMANITARIAN AID?

The development agency USAID has sent advance teams to the Egyptian and Tunisian borders with Libya to help figure out what is needed for the tens of thousands of refugees reported to be fleeing.

They are also conducting emergency reviews of regional food and medicine stockpiles.

The amphibious assault ships USS Kearsarge and USS Ponce, which are laden with food, water-making equipment and shelters, are due to arrive off the Libyan coast in a “couple of days,” Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughead said.

(Additional reporting by Missy Ryan, Andrea Shalal-Esa, Mark Hosenball and Andrew Quinn; Editing by John O’Callaghan and Cynthia Osterman)

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States and its NATO allies were still considering a “no-fly” zone over Libya, although military commanders warned of the peril to allied aircraft of enforcing it.

The United States has also frozen $30 billion in Libyan assets.

“We are going to keep the pressure on Gaddafi until he steps down and allows the people of Libya to express themselves freely and determine their own future,” Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, told ABC’s “Good Morning America” program.

Two amphibious assault ships — the USS Kearsarge, which can carry 2,000 Marines, and the USS Ponce — were due to sail through the Suez Canal and enter the Mediterranean Sea early on Wednesday morning, an Egyptian official said.

The repositioning of U.S. ships and aircraft closer to Libya is widely seen as a symbolic show of force since neither the United States nor its NATO allies have shown any appetite for direct military intervention in the turmoil that has seen Gaddafi lose control of large swaths of his country.

U.S. officials said the ships were being redeployed in preparation for possible humanitarian efforts as tens of thousands of people flee the violence. But they said military action remained an option.

“We are looking at a lot of options and contingencies. No decisions have been made on any other actions,” Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, noting the United Nations had not authorized the use of force in Libya.

As of Tuesday, there were three U.S. ships in the Mediterranean — two destroyers and the USS Mount Whitney, the command ship of the U.S. Sixth Fleet based in Gaeta, Italy.

Gates declined to comment on reports the USS Enterprise, an aircraft carrier in the Red Sea, could be moved into the Mediterranean, a step that would significantly augment the U.S. military presence off Libya.

CIVIL WAR FEARS

Clinton warned of civil strife if Gaddafi, whose forces are trying to regain control of areas now in rebel hands, refused to step down.

“In the years ahead, Libya could become a peaceful democracy or it could face protracted civil war, or it could descend into chaos,” she told U.S. lawmakers.

Clinton also said U.S. authorities would look into claims that Gaddafi may have ordered the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie that killed 270 people. Libya accepted civil responsibility for the bombing in 2003 but Gaddafi has never been held to account.

Rice said the United States would work to stabilize oil prices, which jumped to their highest in 2 1/2 years on unrest in the oil-producing North African country. “This … does have potential implications for oil supply, oil prices,” she said.

Some Republican lawmakers have criticized the Obama administration’s initially cautious response to the Libyan crisis and pressed it to impose a no-fly zone.

That would prevent Gaddafi from using his air force against the rebels, although analysts say the Libyan leader has been relying mainly on ground forces to attack opponents.

Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said a no-fly zone would be a highly complex operation.

“If we were to set it up … we’d have to work our way through doing it in a safe manner and not put ourselves in jeopardy,” he said.

Libya’s Air Defense Command is estimated to have at least 216 surface-to-air missiles and 144 towed and 72 self-propelled missiles. But many analysts say much of Libya’s military equipment is poorly maintained or unusable, raising questions about what threat the anti-aircraft missiles would pose.

(Additional reporting by David Morgan, Alister Bull, Steve Holland, Jeff Mason and Susan Cornwell; Writing by Ross Colvin; Editing by John O’Callaghan and Philip Barbara)