And today’s word from Washington is … stalemate
Congress has it. Gaddafi wants it. And President Obama is trying to figure out how best to avoid it. What is it? The answer: stalemate (noun \ˈstāl-ˌmāt\) … that unsatisfying state of affairs in which there can be no action or progress.
Admiral Mike Mullen, the four-star U.S. Joint Chiefs chairman, conceded the possibility of a stalemate in Libya way back on March 20, a day after U.S. forces and their allies started raining high explosives on Muammar Gaddafi’s military infrastructure and ground forces.
The acknowledgment raised worries that a stalemate would allow Gaddafi’s government to live to fight another day — in perpetuity – while delivering an embarrassing defeat to the U.S. and its allies.
The stalemate hobgoblin has haunted the U.S. debate on Libya ever since. The possibility is now increasingly palpable on the ground in Libya, where rag-tag rebel forces are demonstrating their inability to cope with pro-Gaddafi fighters, even as aircraft can be heard screaming overhead in prelude to the heavy thump of ordnance in the distance.
Obama and his advisers are said to be in a fierce debate about whether to arm the Libyan rebels in hopes of ejecting Gaddafi and avoiding a stalemate.
But Obama may face a more immediate stalemate threat at home. In Congress, the bombastic budget battle over government spending is not only pitting Democrats against Republicans, but Republicans against their newly minted Tea Party brethren. GOP rising star Marco Rubio, a Floridian Tea Party favorite, says he won’t vote to raise the debt ceiling unless it’s the last vote of its kind and accompanied by momentous tax, regulatory and fiscal reforms.
Do these things speak of dialogue? Perhaps two little children shall lead them.
Obama defends Libya policy during hectic New York day
President Barack Obama followed up his speech to the nation defending his Libya policy on Monday night with a whirlwind visit to New York City. He explained the policy in three network news interviews (ABC, NBC, CBS) — at the city’s famed Museum of Natural History.
Then he made a quick visit to a kids’ science fair, joking to the high school students that they are smarter than he is, before dedicating the new Ronald H. Brown U.S. Mission to the United Nations building.
There his Libya strategy was applauded by a roomful of diplomats and endorsed by a Democratic predecessor, ex-President Bill Clinton, the husband of his secretary of state.
“I had to apologize to President Clinton before we walked out because he never sees his wife,” Obama joked as he began his remarks. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was flying back from her latest overseas mission — a quick trip to London for an international conference on Libya.
Bill Clinton got big applause at the dedication of the new U.S. Mission to the UN when he said Brown, who was his commerce secretary and died in a plane crash while traveling to the Balkans, would have approved of the action in Libya.
“He would be very proud that Barack Obama became president of the United States, and very proud of you, Mr. President, for what you are doing in Libya, with the international community.”
Mohammed Albdel-Rahman Shalgam, who was Libya’s UN ambassador until he spoke out against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, and all of the ambassadors from UN Security Council member countries were in the audience.
How bad was Intelligence Czar’s Libya “gaffe”?
The columnist Michael Kinsley once quipped that in Washington a “gaffe” is when a political notable accidentally tells the truth. Intelligence and national security officials are describing the latest controversial statements about Libya by National Intelligence Director James Clapper as that kind of “gaffe.”
At a Congressional hearing on Thursday, Clapper said that rebels trying to oust Muammar Gaddafi from power had lost momentum and that the Libyan leader could well survive for some time to come. “We believe that Gaddafi is in this for the long haul…He appears to be hunkering down for the duration.”
“This is kind of a stalemate back and forth,” Clapper said, but added that, “I think over the long term that the (Gaddafi) regime will prevail.”
White House officials subsequently distanced the administration somewhat from Clapper’s remarks and President Obama repeated on Friday that he wants Gaddafi to go.
Clapper was criticized for his his upbeat assessment of Gaddafi’s prospects. Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican member of the Armed Services committee, called his statement “devastating” and while “some of (Clapper’s) analysis could prove to be accurate,” the intelligence czar was unwise to voice it in public.
But intelligence and national security officials defended Clapper’s remarks, saying that they represented an accurate summary of current U.S. intelligence reporting and analysis on the relative military postures of Gaddafi and his opponents. They said intelligence operatives must advise their “customers” and are not supposed to be influenced by wishful thinking or political or foreign policy considerations.
They say Clapper shouldn’t be blamed for laying out professional judgements that don’t fit a party line.
Gaffe?? Sounds to me like this guy is the only sign of intelligent life in DC…
Dueling analyses over Libya’s future?
The Director of National Intelligence dropped a bomb – metaphorically — in the Senate on Thursday when he testified that Libyan rebels are not likely to oust Muammar Gaddafi and predicted that eventually “the regime will prevail.”
James Clapper’s jaw-dropping prediction, as Washington, NATO and the United Nations search for a way forward and Libya lurches toward civil war, prompted Republican Senator Lindsey Graham to call for his dismissal.
And it prompted some flame-throwing from the White House.
Tom Donilon, Obama’s National Security Advisor, said Obama is happy with Clapper’s performance, but he had tough words for Clapper’s analysis.
“If you did a static and one-dimensional assessment of just looking at order of battle and mercenaries, you can come to various conclusions about the various advantages that the Gaddafi regime and the opposition have,” Donilon told reporters on a conference call.
“But our view is, my view is — as the person who looks at this quite closely every day and advises the president — is that things in the Middle East right now and things in Libya in particular right now need to be looked at not through a static, but a dynamic, and not through a unidimensional, but a multidimensional, lens.”
Donilon said a “static, unidimensional analysis” does not take into account factors such as steps that can be taken in cooperation with the Libyan oppostion, the mood in the region and Gaddafi’s isolation.
Pretty sure NATO’s immediate Intervention could define world economy stability later on.
Lugar warns U.S. against war in Libya
In recent days some U.S. senators have been urging President Obama to consider military intervention to help Libyan rebels fighting Moammar Gaddafi.
Not Richard Lugar.
The top Republican on the Senate foreign relations committee said little while a senior member of his own party, John McCain, repeatedly urged the United States to pursue setting up a no-fly zone over Libya.
On Sunday Democrat John Kerry, the chairman of the foreign relations committee, suggested that Washington might want to ”crater” runways used by Gaddafi’s forces.
On Tuesday, Lugar issued a strong warning against U.S. intervention in what he called Libya’s civil war.
“The United States should not, in my view, launch military intervention into yet another Muslim country, without thinking long and hard about the consequences and implications,” Lugar said in a statement.
“ If a no-fly zone doesn’t stop the street-to-street fighting, are we prepared to escalate further, to put boots on the ground? Would that involve taking control of the country? Would we be obligated to stay until democracy is established?”
Top Navy officer hesitant to predict Libyan future
U.S. Navy Admiral Gary Roughead lived in Libya as a child before Muammar Gaddafi seized power in 1969, and says the experience only underscored how difficult it can be to predict the region’s future.
“Having spent some time in the Middle East, to include actually living in Libya, I am always hesitant to predict what the future may be there,” Roughhead, the Chief of Naval Operations told a Senate committee Tuesday. “It’s still a very uncertain period that bears watching.”
Roughead lived in Libya in the 1960s when his father worked for Standard Oil, the company that later became Exxon. He left to attend high school at Valley Forge Military Academy in Pennsylvania, where he graduated in 1969, just months before Gaddafi overthrew Libya’s King Idris. He returned to the country during his college years at the U.S. Naval Academy.
Roughead said it was important to carefully think through possible U.S. military action in Libya before moving ahead.
The Obama administration has faced sharp criticism in Congress for being too cautious over the turmoil in Libya but has signaled it will not be rushed into decisions that could suck the already strained U.S. military into another conflict.
Western allies remain divided over whether to impose a no-fly zone over Libya, but the Obama administration has cautioned that any foreign military intervention in Libya would require international backing.
Roughead said it would be critical to understand issues such as basing of airplanes to be involved in patrolling the skies above Libya, restrictions on the use of force and other factors. He also reiterated that air strikes would be needed first to destroy Libya’s anti-aircraft defenses.
Washington Extra – Trying it out
It’s a bird, it’s a plane… oh wait… sorry, just some trial balloons floating around…
President Barack Obama took a harsh tone on Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi at today’s news conference.
The way he repeatedly emphasized “COLONEL” was an effective reminder that Gaddafi was not an elected leader like a president, but rather a military man who took power through a coup.
Obama’s insistence that Gaddafi go is a way to keep verbal pressure on while he considers which option on the table to use. He also tried to leave the impression that whatever he chooses will be bad for the Libyan leader and good for the people.
Another person exploring options is former House Speaker Newt Gingrich who announced his intent to explore whether there is support for a potential run for president.
Sort of like when policymakers agree on a framework to discuss the framework…
Here are our top stories from Washington…
Washington Extra – Revolutionary wrath
Revolutionaries have a tough time dealing with revolutions.
When Muammar Gaddafi took power in Libya in 1969, he was not yet 30. Today he faces an uprising from youthful protesters who want him gone. His response: You deserve the death penalty. So far it appears about 300 have been killed in the protests.
The United States has little leverage with Libya — the countries have not been on the friendliest of terms for most of Gaddafi’s rule.
So the administration is left issuing words like Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s repetition that Libya immediately stop “this unacceptable bloodshed.” Is that enough? Others are calling for sanctions to military intervention.
In a novel explanation, Gaddafi says he can’t step down because he is not president but is in fact a revolutionary.
Not known for subtlety, Gaddafi chose as location for his angry discourse the residence damaged in the 1986 U.S. bombing raid that also killed his baby daughter. Next to him stood a monument of a fist crushing a U.S. fighter jet.
Oil is at a 2-1/2 year high on the Libya revolt, no small issue for the world’s largest consumer of oil. And stocks racked up their biggest daily loss since August on the turmoil.
from Global News Journal:
A world without nuclear weapons: Obama’s pipe dream?
U.S. President Barack Obama says he wants a world without nuclear weapons. But will that ever happen? Obama showed he's serious this week. He chaired a historic summit meeting of the U.N. Security Council which unanimously passed a U.S.-drafted resolution that envisages "a world without nuclear weapons". It was the first time a U.S. president chaired a meeting of the Security Council since it was established in 1946. John Burroughs, executive director of the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy, an advocacy group, identified serious weaknesses in the resolution, including the absence of mandatory disarmament steps for the world's five official nuclear powers -- the United States, Britain, China, France and Russia. Some diplomats from countries without nuclear weapons said the lack of mandatory disarmament moves is not just a weakness, but a loophole the five big powers -- which have permanent seats and vetoes on the Security Council -- deliberately inserted into the resolution so that they wouldn't have to scrap their beloved nuclear arsenals. An official from one of the five big powers appeared to confirm this in an "off-record" email to Reuters explaining the language in the resolution: "I would underline that creating the conditions for a world free of nuclear weapons is not the same as calling for a world free of nuclear weapons." He added that "the spirit of the resolution is much more about non-proliferation than disarmament." A diplomat and disarmament expert from a European country with no nuclear weapons said this was typical of the "cynicism" of some permanent Security Council members. He added that the U.S. delegation had made very clear that the use of the word "disarmament" meant total nuclear disarmament -- perhaps not today, but someday. China's President Hu Jintao said China was not planning to get rid of its nuclear arsenal anytime soon. So did French President Nicolas Sarkozy. The resolution didn't name Iran and North Korea. However, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Sarkozy filled in the blanks and called for tougher sanctions against Iran for defying U.N. demands to halt sensitive nuclear work. The resolution didn't mention Pakistan, India, Israel and North Korea, the four others known or assumed to have nuclear weapons. But it did politely ask "other states" to sign the 1970 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and get rid of their atom bombs. Libya's Muammar Gaddafi was the only leader of a council member state that stayed away from the meeting. Several council diplomats expressed relief at his absence, saying they had been afraid the long-winded Gaddafi would have exceeded the five-minute limit for statements.
(Photos by Mike Segar/REUTERS)
brian,a lot countries object to American interference even the ones who are prepared to take aid in spite of these objections,particularly when they have some sort of natural catastrophe,and when America is normally the first to show up.Incidentally was it only a rumour that Clinton handed a 600 million bribe to North Korea?.
Senate rebukes Libya, and it wasn’t for Gaddafi’s speech…
Coincidence? Maybe.
The U.S. Senate rebuked Libya Wednesday during the nearly two-hour speech that leader Muammar Gaddafi gave to the U.N. General Assembly in New York.
While Gaddafi was excoriating world powers in his first address to the United Nations, the Senate approved a resolution condemning the “lavish” welcome home ceremony that Libya gave last month for a convicted Lockerbie bomber and demanding an apology for the celebration.
Gaddafi’s words, heard through the lively voice of the translator, went on for nearly two hours at the U.N. podium, raising some questions about whether the U.N. had time limits on speeches.
It seems the first translator exhausted himself about 90 minutes in and another — somewhat calmer — voice took over.
But not before the first one had a chance to rattle off Gadaffi’s musings on everything including who killed JFK.
While Gaddafi praised President Barack Obama in his speech, the U.S. president didn’t hear it first-hand. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs says Obama didn’t watch the Libyan leader’s speech.
Gaddafi is only a clown in the greatest circus on planet earth; the UN
