Libyan Civil War Megathread

[Caliga]

I sometimes find Chomsky's opinions to be interesting, though I virtually never agree with him.  However, Cynthia is much too stupid to ever be interesting in any way, except in the way that a train wreck is interesting.

[Barrister]

It did - had they not intervened, the USA would never have been formed, and the French would all be speaking German today.

Naw - they would would be part of the invincible British Empire, and all be speaking English.

A distinct improvement. 

No way, the Brits were already on the decline. French support for the US just made it so we were not dragged down into mediocrity with them, like Canada.

The Brits were on the way up, hitting their apogee in the late 19th century. 

The writing was on the wall!

Sure thing Mr. Marx.

[Habbaku]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/lawmakers-question-whether-obama-is-adhering-to-war-powers-resolution-in-libya/2011/05/25/AGhkjMBH_story.html?hpid=z2

By David A. Fahrenthold and Craig Whitlock, Wednesday, May 25, 1:59 PM

Is President Obama breaking the law in Libya?

That question — which both the White House and congressional leaders seemed to have ducked in recent days — was raised by several legislators Wednesday morning at a House committee hearing.

It came on the same day that Obama, speaking in London, urged patience with the two-month-old campaign against Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi.

The hearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee was the most public airing so far of a complaint on Capitol Hill: that Obama has violated the 1973 War Powers Resolution by not obtaining congressional authorization for the U.S. attacks in Libya.

"The undeniable conclusion is that the president is breaking the law by continuing the unilateral offensive war in Libya," said Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), a conservative freshman testifying before the committee.

Amash has proposed a bill that would cut off funding for U.S. efforts in Libya until Obama obtains congressional authorization. "The tragedy for our system of self-government would be if Congress continued to do nothing," he said.

On Friday, Obama missed a 60-day deadline set by the Nixon-era act that required him to obtain congressional permission for the operation in Libya. Instead, he sent a letter to congressional leaders that did not mention the War Powers Resolution but urged that they pass a resolution of support for the campaign in the violence-torn country.

That resolution has been introduced in the Senate. But Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said Tuesday that it won't be considered until after the Memorial Day recess, which lasts all next week.

On Tuesday, in fact, it was clear that the Libya operation has brought about a remarkable moment in Washington. The White House and Republican and Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill signaled a common strategy on the War Powers Resolution — a law governing the key issue of how the United States goes to war. In what seems like a political magic trick, they appear to be trying their best to ignore the law in the hope that it goes away.

Asked whether the president still has the authority to continue operations in Libya, Obama spokesman Ben Rhodes did not mention the resolution specifically.

"I think we addressed that through the letter the president sent up to Congress at the end of last week, again, reaffirming our ongoing efforts in Libya," Rhodes said. "So we believe we have the authorities we need."

Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) showed little concern that Obama had missed the deadline. "We've had good discussions on Libya," Reid said. McConnell also was noncommittal: "Discussions continue."

On Wednesday in London, there was no sign that the involvement in the Libyan uprising would let up. Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron spoke of a continued commitment to pressure Gaddafi with military attacks.

"Gaddafi and his regime need to understand that there will not be a let-up in the pressure that we are applying," Obama said. "I believe that we have built enough momentum that as long as we sustain the course that we are on that he is ultimately going to step down," Obama said.

Legal scholars say that the War Powers Resolution has been flouted repeatedly by past presidents. Congress tussled with Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton over the resolution: in the 1980s, when Reagan sent Marines to Lebanon, and in 1999, when Clinton ordered airstrikes in the Balkans.

But scholars noted that past presidents often made an argument about why the resolution didn't apply to them. As the deadline passed, Obama did not even do that.

Obama's lack of response "does take this final step of not even bothering to go through the motions," said Peter Spiro, a law professor at Temple University.

Spiro said he approved of the president's decision: He, and some other legal scholars, say the law deserves to be ignored. The resolution, Spiro said, has been unworkable and possibly unconstitutional since its enactment.

"President Obama has clearly violated the letter of law. And nobody's really jumping up and down that much," Spiro said. "That's a reflection of a consensus understanding that [this] law doesn't represent 'the law.' That the law isn't the law."

But, in Congress, some legislators have begun to raise objections. On Tuesday, Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), the top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, asked William J. Burns, a White House nominee for deputy secretary of state, about the the missed deadline.

"It appears to me that potentially a precedent is being set here that ... is not a good one," Lugar told Burns. "I'm hopeful that you'll convey that back" to the White House.

And on Wednesday morning at the House committee hearing, a series of legislators blasted Obama as ignoring the resolution — and Congress itself.

"They won't even acknowledge the 60th day ... the day on which they began violating the law," said Rep. Bradley J. Sherman (D-Calif.). "The fault is also with Congress. So many of us would like to evade the contentious issues."

Rep. Tom Rooney (R-Fla.) testified before the committee about his own proposed resolution, which would express the "sense of Congress" that Obama should seek authorization for the operation in Libya.

"If you're going to go to war and send our troops into harm's way, you need us — and the American people — on board," Rooney said. "What we're asking for is simple — that the president respect our role."

Historians say that the legislators who drafted the War Powers Act were trying to address two of Washington's ingrained habits: Presidents usually seek to expand their powers, and Congress often shies away from inserting itself into ongoing wars, because the downside of meddling is so high.

The act was intended to stop both, forcing Congress into confrontations that would check the president's power.

But, since it was passed, the resolution has been undermined by the very habits it was meant to overcome.

"It's just like a [New Year's] resolution, right? You start off the new year with the desire to go the gym," but bad old habits return quickly, said Saikrishna Prakash, a law professor at the University of Virginia. "You can't tie your hands with this piece of paper."

[Neil]

Historians say that the legislators who drafted the War Powers Act were trying to address two of Washington's ingrained habits: Presidents usually seek to expand their powers, and Congress often shies away from inserting itself into ongoing wars, because the downside of meddling is so high.

Well, actually it was created to address the fact that Congress was Democratic and the Presidency was occupied by Republicans.

[Viking]

I sometimes find Chomsky's opinions to be interesting, though I virtually never agree with him.  However, Cynthia is much too stupid to ever be interesting in any way, except in the way that a train wreck is interesting.

Chomsky is usually pretty good about the scientific method and stuff like that. His mental gymnastics are usually all consistent with it, which makes them just so much more admirable for the quality of his mental backflips.

[MadImmortalMan]

Congress should just pass the Libya authorizing resolution and send it on up if there are concerns. What's he gonna do, veto it?

[HisMajestyBOB]

Congress should just pass the Libya authorizing resolution and send it on up if there are concerns. What's he gonna do, veto it?

They're laying the groundwork to impeach Obama if they can't beat him in the next election.

[CountDeMoney]

I sometimes find Chomsky's opinions to be interesting, though I virtually never agree with him.  However, Cynthia is much too stupid to ever be interesting in any way, except in the way that a train wreck is interesting.

Chomsky is usually pretty good about the scientific method and stuff like that. His mental gymnastics are usually all consistent with it, which makes them just so much more admirable for the quality of his mental backflips.

I wish Stephen Jay Gould were still alive.  That's a facinating man to read.

[citizen k]

Benghazi blast shows risk of post-Gaddafi unrest
By William Maclean

RABAT (Reuters) – An explosion in rebel-held Benghazi may be a harbinger of the kind of unrest Libya could face in the event of Muammar Gaddafi's ousting as diehard loyalists seek to stifle revolutionary rule at birth.

The blast on Wednesday damaged a hotel used by rebels and foreigners in Benghazi, wounding one person, and rebel authorities said they believed the explosion might be linked to Gaddafi agents still operating in the east.

Abdel Hafiz Ghoga, vice chairman of the rebel National Transitional Council, said the explosion outside Tibesti hotel was believed to have been caused by a hand grenade thrown in a "desperate attempt" by Gaddafi loyalists to sow terror.

More such attacks are likely if Gaddafi is toppled, analysts say, because the abundance of weaponry in a time of war would make them relatively easy for Gaddafi hardliners to stage.

Tunisia's revolution was followed by repeated disturbances blamed on supporters of ousted Tunisia ruler Zine el Abidine Ben Ali. Iraq is another example of the chaos that can follow a dictator's departure -- violence continued for years after Saddam Hussein was overthrown by the 2003 U.S-led invasion.

Analysts say two factors will be important in minimizing the likelihood of unrest: the speed with which security forces seen as legitimate are deployed to keep order, and the degree to which the new rulers are prepared to offer reconciliation to those who held positions of responsibility under Gaddafi.

"HOTHEADS" MAY ATTEMPT SABOTAGE

Rebel official Guma el-Gamaty said similar acts of violence could occur for a few weeks after the removal of Gaddafi, adding these were more likely in the capital Tripoli than in the rebel bastion of Benghazi, but precise predictions were impossible.

"It's possible it could go on for a few weeks, but it's hard to call. There might be hotheads, ideologues, sleeper cells who might to try to sabotage the new situation," he told Reuters. "A lot will depend on how quickly the police and security forces are recalled to service and deployed."

Now in its fourth month, the Libyan conflict is deadlocked, with rebels unable to break out of their strongholds and advance toward Tripoli, where Gaddafi appears firmly entrenched.

But Western governments say they believe they are gradually wearing down Gaddafi's ability to control the country, through a combination of diplomatic pressure and military action.

Gamaty said a post-Gaddafi government would not "make the mistake" of U.S. administrators in post-invasion Baghdad who disbanded the national army, a move widely believed to have swelled the ranks of insurgents who plunged Iraq into chaos.

"We will try to make the changeover as quickly as possible, and be as inclusive as possible. We already have a network in Tripoli of hundreds of activists who will create a local council in the aftermath of Gaddafi's departure," he said.

Gamaty said he expected that "a few hundred" people with blood on their hands would seek to flee, but others would be welcome to stay and build a new government.

Alex Warren, a director of FrontierMEA, a Middle East and North Africa research firm, said that any violence against the new government would not be as organised as the Iraq insurgency.

GADDAFI'S "SHAMBLES"

"You don't have the sectarian element and there are no major opposition groups that have a clearly identified leader and there is no really ideologically driven group," he said.

But unless there was an inclusive set of talks to build a post-Gaddafi government "there could be a problem."

"The people who had a stake in the old system will need to be given an exit strategy. If there is a power void you could see looting and attempts to destabilize the new authorities."

Ashour Shamis, an opposition activist and editor based in London, said he foresaw isolated incidents but added the Gaddafi supporters staging them would not have the morale to go further and stage a highly coordinated campaign.

Nevertheless, the new government would have to try to exercise maximum vigilance and organization, he said.

Many analysts do not expect Libya to stabilize quickly after Gaddafi because 41 years of his highly personalized rule have damaged faith in the notion of public administration.

Writing in the May/June edition of Foreign Affairs, Lisa Anderson, President of the American Univerity in Cairo, said the "capricious cruelty" of Gaddafi's years in power had eroded Libyans' trust in their government, and in each other, and left a generation in their 30s and 40s who were poorly educated.

"Libya under Gaddafi has borne traces of the Italian fascism that ruled the country in its colonial days: extravagance, dogmatism and brutality," she wrote.

"The challenge for Libya is both simpler and more vexing than those facing Tunisia and Egypt: Libya confronts the complexity not of democratization, but of state formation."

"It will need to construct a coherent national identity and public administration out of Gaddafi's shambles."

[citizen k]

British, French helicopters strike Gadhafi troops
By HADEEL AL-SHALCHI, Associated Press

BENGHAZI, Libya – British and French attack helicopters struck for the first time inside Libya, giving the NATO campaign more muscle against Moammar Gadhafi's forces. Hours later, Tripoli was hit by another round of airstrikes and at least eight explosions sounded in the capital.

The use of helicopters significantly ramped up NATO's operations and was a major boost to Libyan rebels, just a day after the fighters forced government troops from three western towns and broke the siege of a fourth. It was yet another erosion of Gadhafi's power since the eruption in mid-February of the uprising to end his 42-year rule.

NATO said the helicopters struck troops trying to hide in populated areas, military vehicles and equipment. Lt. Gen. Charles Bouchard, commander of the Libya operation, said the engagement "demonstrates the unique capabilities brought to bear by attack helicopters."

Until now, NATO has relied on attack jets, generally flying above 15,000 feet (4,500 meters) — nearly three miles (five kilometers) high. The jets primarily strike government targets but there have been cases where they missed and hit rebels instead.

The helicopters give the alliance a key advantage in close-up combat, flying at much lower altitudes.

The British Apaches hit two targets near the eastern oil town of Brega, according British Maj. Gen. Nick Pope, and separate Royal Air Force aircraft destroyed another military installation near Brega and two ammunition bunkers at the large Waddan depot in central Libya.

Brega is of strategic importance to Libya's oil industry and lies on the coastal road along the Mediterranean that leads to the capital, Tripoli. In the early days of the uprising against Gadhafi, it went back and forth between rebel and loyalist hands, but later the front line settled to the east of the town, leaving Brega under Gadhafi's control.

The French Gazelle and Tiger helicopters struck 15 military vehicles and five military command buildings, said Col. Thierry Burkhard. All the helicopters returned safely, the French and British said.

British Defense Secretary Liam Fox said the "use of the attack helicopters is a logical extension" in NATO's campaign and indicated more would be used in the future.

"We will continue with the methods we have to degrade his (Gadhafi's) command and control, to degrade his supplies," Fox said from Singapore, where he was attending an Asian security conference.

The head of the rebels' Transitional National Council, Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, welcomed the helicopter attacks and emphasized that they launched from ships outside Libya.

"We welcome any measures to expedite the departure of Moammar Gadhafi, but at the same time we maintain the sovereignty of the Libyan state," Abdul-Jalil told reporters Saturday.

The conflict in Libya appears at a stalemate after nearly four months. NATO airstrikes have kept the outgunned rebels from being overrun, but the rebels have been unable to mount an effective offensive against Gadhafi's better equipped forces.

Gadhafi's regime has been slowly crumbling from within. A significant number of officers and several Cabinet ministers have defected, and most have expressed support for the opposition, but Gadhafi's hold on power shows little sign of loosening.

Gadhafi has been seen in public rarely and heard even less frequently since a NATO airstrike on his compound killed one of his sons on April 30. Questions are arising about the physical and mental state of the 69-year-old dictator, who has ruled Libya since 1969.

The NATO strikes on Saturday targeted an educational institute in eastern Tripoli where military officials and civilians studied engineering, computers and communications, according to an official who requested anonymity in line with government policy.

Libyan rebels on Friday won control of four towns in the western Nafusa mountain range, where government forces have besieged and periodically shelled rebel-held areas.

The small rebel force in the western mountains is unlikely to threaten Gadhafi's hold on Tripoli, 45 miles (70 kilometers) northwest, but the victories could bring relief to local residents by opening up roads between their communities. The western mountain population is tiny compared with the large rebel-held territories in east Libya.

Fighting continued Saturday in another part of the mountain range, near the border with Tunisia. A resident of the town of Nalut, Mohammed Jernaz, said via Skype that Gadhafi's forces fired grad rockets, injuring 10 people.

A video posted by Nalut activists on YouTube showed injured men covered with blood being transported in the back of pickup trucks. The video's authenticity could not be confirmed.

Abdul-Jalil, the head of the rebel council, and other leaders met with British Foreign Secretary William Hague in the rebels' de facto capital, Benghazi.

Hague is one of the highest-ranking foreign officials to visit rebel-held territory in eastern Libya.

He traveled with another British Cabinet minister, International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell, on a visit Hague said was to show support for those fighting Gadhafi's rule.

Hague called the National Transitional Council "the legitimate representation of the Libyan people," but fell short of calling it a government as other NATO countries like France and Italy have.

He said that British efforts to support rebel fighters were in full swing, and included providing radios, uniforms and bulletproof vests.

"I believe now the momentum has shifted increasingly against the Gadhafi regime," said Hague.

[Razgovory]

I sometimes find Chomsky's opinions to be interesting, though I virtually never agree with him.  However, Cynthia is much too stupid to ever be interesting in any way, except in the way that a train wreck is interesting.

Chomsky is usually pretty good about the scientific method and stuff like that. His mental gymnastics are usually all consistent with it, which makes them just so much more admirable for the quality of his mental backflips.

I think you should always take care to separate Chomsky's work in linguistics and his political philosophy.  His politics are kooky, but his work in linguistics are nothing short of revolutionary.

[Viking]

I sometimes find Chomsky's opinions to be interesting, though I virtually never agree with him.  However, Cynthia is much too stupid to ever be interesting in any way, except in the way that a train wreck is interesting.

Chomsky is usually pretty good about the scientific method and stuff like that. His mental gymnastics are usually all consistent with it, which makes them just so much more admirable for the quality of his mental backflips.

I think you should always take care to separate Chomsky's work in linguistics and his political philosophy.  His politics are kooky, but his work in linguistics are nothing short of revolutionary.

Revolutionary, yes, but quite possibly wrong Language universality idea tested with biology method (Abstract on Nature Website)

Edit: Declaration of bias, I find Chomsky's politics and morality contemptible and thus find much pleasure in somebody proving him wrong.

[Razgovory]

Possible, I don't know enough to say yea, or nay, but his theories have become the standard since they were published back in '60's.  That alone says his influence has been massive.

[Razgovory]

I sometimes find Chomsky's opinions to be interesting, though I virtually never agree with him.  However, Cynthia is much too stupid to ever be interesting in any way, except in the way that a train wreck is interesting.

Chomsky is usually pretty good about the scientific method and stuff like that. His mental gymnastics are usually all consistent with it, which makes them just so much more admirable for the quality of his mental backflips.

I wish Stephen Jay Gould were still alive.  That's a facinating man to read.

Dawkin's hated him, a good reason to like him.

[Neil]

Of course he hated him.  Dawkins is a fundamentalist, while Gould wasn't an antisocial dick.