Politics Daily http://www.politicsdaily.com Politics Daily http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.politicsdaily.com/media/feedlogo.gif Politics Daily http://www.politicsdaily.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/Obama: Allies Will Soon Take Control of Libyan Campaignhttp://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/22/obama-allies-will-soon-take-over-management-of-libyan-campaign/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/22/obama-allies-will-soon-take-over-management-of-libyan-campaign/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/22/obama-allies-will-soon-take-over-management-of-libyan-campaign/#commentsFiled under: , , , , , ,

Facing criticism for taking military action in Libya without first formally consulting Congress, President Obama said Tuesday he is certain U.S. control over the operation would soon be transferred to the allies, news agencies reported.

"I have absolutely no doubt that we will be able to transfer control of this operation to an international coalition," Obama said at a press conference in San Salvador with El Salvadoran President Mauricio Funes, Bloomberg reported.

Members of NATO are meeting to establish a command structure, which will be done "over the next several days," he said.

Related Stories

Aboard Air Force One, Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser, told reporters, "What we're saying right now is that NATO has a key role to play here."

According to Bloomberg, "the allies are considering a proposal, backed by France, to create a political steering committee that would oversee military operations using NATO's command structure."

In Moscow, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he expected that "significant military fighting" in Libya "should recede in the next few days."

"I don't want to get in front of the diplomacy that is going on, but I still think a transfer within a few days is likely," Gates said. "This command-and-control business is complicated, and we haven't done something like this kind of on the fly before. So it's not surprising to me that it would take a few days to get it all sorted out," The Washington Post reported.

Meanwhile, debate in Washington over the U.S. role heated up even before reports Tuesday that a U.S. warplane patrolling Libyan air space had crashed.

Four liberal House Democrats -- Reps. Barbara Lee, Mike Honda, and Lynn Woolsey, all of California, and Raul Grijalva or Arizona -- called on the president to end the U.S. involvement in the Libyan campaign, Politico said.

"The decision for the United States to engage militarily in Libya is one that should have been debated and approved by Congress," the four lawmakers said in their statement. "We have serious concerns about whether or not an effective and thorough case for military intervention in Libya was made. Too many questions remain. What is our responsibility now? Do we own the situation in Libya and for how long? Where does this dramatic acceleration of military intervention end?"

Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.), a conservative member of the House Armed Services Committee, said Obama's "unilateral choice" to join a U.N.-backed coalition establishing a no-fly zone "is an affront to our Constitution," The Hill newspaper reported. The United States, Bartlett said, "does not have a king's army."

Meanwhile, a CBS News poll shows a full 50 percent of Americans approve of the president's handling of Libya.

Since the intervention started Saturday, U.S. Navy warships have launched Tomahawk missiles at Libyan air defenses, while American warplanes have joined other coalition aircraft in attacking military installations and some Libyan ground troops.

A U.S. F-15E Strike Eagle fighter jet crashed late Monday near Benghazi, but its two crew members ejected and were rescued, the Washington Post and NPR said. Military officials said the plane apparently malfunctioned and was not shot down.

In the Senate, Richard Lugar of Indiana, the top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee and a White House ally on some issues, said Congress should have a full debate on the objectives and costs of the U.S. role in the attacks. And Democratic Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia, a moderate, said, "This isn't the way the system is supposed to work."

But earlier this month, Defense Secretary Gates warned pro-intervention lawmakers that setting up a no-fly zone was a major undertaking that would have to begin with attacks on Moammar Gadhafi's anti-aircraft systems.

Traveling with the president in Santiago, Chile on Monday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney insisted Obama had consulted personally with congressional leaders on the Libyan situation. And last Saturday, Carney said Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough phoned top lawmakers "to inform them of the imminent action" about to happen. "We take very seriously the need to consult with Congress and we have been doing that," Carney said.

Under the Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war. But the president, as commander in chief of the armed forces, has authority to take military action in emergencies or in the face of threats to national security.

For Rep. Dennis Kucinich, that's not enough to justify what the U.S. has done in Libya. The liberal lawmaker called it "an act of war" and said Congress should be called back from a spring recess to decide whether to continue the military action.

On the website Raw Story, Kucinich (D-Ohio) went further, calling Obama's move in Libya "an impeachable offense." The president "didn't have congressional authorization; he has gone against the Constitution, and that's got to be said," Kucinich maintained.

Kucinich noted that then-Sen. Obama argued in 2007 that "the president does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

Kucinich, who has twice run for president as an anti-war candidate, said he was not actually proposing impeachment proceedings but only "raising the question" as to whether grounds exist. In any event, calls for a president's impeachment -- often coming from the far left or the far right on Capitol Hill -- are not unusual. Kucinich himself sought to initiate an impeachment article against President George W. Bush in 2008, but then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi wouldn't go along with it.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>Barack Obamabritaincoalitioncommand and controldennis kucinichfranceliberalslibyaLibya uprisinglibyan military actionNATOPolitics Daily Staff2011-03-22T21:11:00+00:00Half of Americans Approve of Obama's Handling of Libyahttp://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/22/half-of-americans-approve-of-obamas-handling-of-libya/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/22/half-of-americans-approve-of-obamas-handling-of-libya/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/22/half-of-americans-approve-of-obamas-handling-of-libya/#commentsFiled under: , , , ,

President Obama's handling of Libya gets the approval of half of Americans who have an opinion on it (and about one-fifth do not), despite criticism from right, left and abroad, according to a CBS News poll conducted March 18-21. (Poll data here.) Critics say the administration waited too long to act or, once it did, took military action whose goals were not as defined as Obama had said they would be.

Fifty percent said they approved of Obama's handling of the situation, 29 percent disapproved, while 21 percent expressed no opinion.

Obama does better when it comes to ratings on his performance on Libya and other foreign policy matters than on some major domestic issues. The CBS poll found that Republicans, who uniformly give Obama low marks on domestic issues, particularly health care, the economy and the deficit, approve of his handling of the Libya situation by a 43 percent to 41 percent margin.

A CNN/Opinion Research poll, conducted March 18-20, found that 54 percent of those surveyed approved of Obama's handling of foreign affairs, and 50 percent agree with the way he's dealt with the Libyan crisis. By contrast, CNN's polling found that only 36 percent approved of Obama's handling of the deficit, 39 percent approved of his economic policy and 41 percent liked the way he was handling health care.

While the CBS poll found little change in Obama's overall job approval rating -- 49 percent approve and 41 percent disapprove -- there was a good sign for him in the fact that independents, who soured on him last year, approved of his performance by 46 percent to 39 percent, with the remainder undecided.


Follow Poll Watch on Twitter

Visit the Poll Watch Home Page and see all the latest polls in one place

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>dailyguidanceLibyaMoammar Gadhafino fly zoneobama pollsU.S. military action LibyaBruce Drake2011-03-22T12:46:00+00:00Warren Christopher, Former Secretary of State, Democratic Wise Man, Dead at 85http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/19/warren-christopher-former-secretary-of-state-democratic-wise-m/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/19/warren-christopher-former-secretary-of-state-democratic-wise-m/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/19/warren-christopher-former-secretary-of-state-democratic-wise-m/#commentsFiled under: , , , , , ,

Former Secretary of State Warren M. Christopher, who served as secretary of state in the Clinton administration during the bloody ethnic conflicts in the Balkans, died Friday from complications of kidney and bladder cancer. He was 85.

After four years as the nation's top diplomat, Christopher stepped down to serve as a senior adviser to Al Gore's 2000 White House campaign, leading the vice president's legal team during the disputed post-election recount in Florida.

President Obama, in a statement Saturday, called Christopher a "skilled diplomat, a steadfast public servant and a faithful American."

Obama said Christopher was "deeply dedicated to serving his country" during a career that included World War II service in the Naval Reserve, a U.S. Supreme Court clerkship, a law practice in California and Washington, and a role as a much sought-after adviser to Democratic politicians.

"As President Clinton's secretary of state, he was a resolute pursuer of peace, leading negotiations with regard to the Middle East and the Balkans, including the Dayton [Ohio] agreement, which ended the war in Bosnia," Obama said. Christopher was also a U.S. negotiator in the 1981 release of American hostages in Iran.

Former President Jimmy Carter, in his memoirs, called him "the best public servant I ever knew."

Christoper died at his home in Los Angeles, the Associated Press reported.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>dailyguidanceWarren ChristopherPolitics Daily Staff2011-03-19T14:14:00+00:00Obama in Brazil, Balancing Latin American Swing With Libyan Crisishttp://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/19/obama-in-brazil-balancing-latin-american-swing-with-libyan-cris/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/19/obama-in-brazil-balancing-latin-american-swing-with-libyan-cris/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/19/obama-in-brazil-balancing-latin-american-swing-with-libyan-cris/#commentsFiled under: , , , , ,

President Obama, balancing the crisis in Libya with a long-planned trip to Latin America, arrived in Brazil Saturday at the outset of a three-country swing aimed at strengthening the nation's economic relationship with its neighbors and improving regional security.

"As we respond to these immediate crises abroad, we also will not let up in our efforts to tackle the pressing, ongoing challenges facing our country, including accelerating economic growth," Obama said in his weekly address before departing.

Related Stories

Latin America is experiencing rapid economic growth, the president said, and is open for business with North American companies. "We now export more than three times as much to Latin America as we do to China, and our exports to the region will soon support more than two million jobs here in the United States," he said.

After Air Force 1 landed in Brasilia, the capital, Obama was briefed on the fluid situation in Libya by National Security Adviser Tom Donilon.
On a drizzly day, Obama was met at the Brasilia airport by U.S. Ambassador Thomas A. Shannon, prior to a formal welcoming ceremony and bilateral session with Brazil President Dilma Rousseff at the presidential palace. Rousseff accepted an invitation to visit the United States later this year.

Later at a meeting with CEOs, Obama said the two countries would enter into a new trade and cooperation deal and also an open skies agreement, liberalizing the countries' respective rules for air routes, capacity and pricing of commercial airliners.

The president was accompanied by first lady Michelle Obama, their daughters Sasha and Malia, and Marian Robinson, the president's mother-in-law. He will also visit Chile and El Salvador in Central America.

Speaking in Brasilia Saturday at a youth cultural event, Michelle Obama noted that she had come from a modest working class background. "I want you all to look at me and see that anything is possible, That's why I'm here... " she said. "I hope that you all will keep pushing yourselves. I hope you all will keep pushing one another. I hope that you all continue to work as a commnity, you support each other, that you encourage each other...."

In Washington, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, said Obama should consider proposing a reciprocal tax treaty with Brazil, so companies doing business with both nations can avoid double taxation, the Associated Press said.

Watch Obama's weekly remarks.




 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>BrazilChileLatin AmericaPolitics Daily Staff2011-03-19T11:59:00+00:00Obama to Gadhafi: Stop the Attacks or Face Military Actionhttp://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/17/u-n-resolution-clears-way-for-military-intervention-in-libya/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/17/u-n-resolution-clears-way-for-military-intervention-in-libya/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/17/u-n-resolution-clears-way-for-military-intervention-in-libya/#commentsFiled under:

President Obama on Friday warned Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi to stop attacking Libyan citizens or face the consequences outlined in a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing "all necessary measures," including a no-fly zone, to protect civilians.

Later Friday, fighter aircraft from France, Britain and the United Arab Emirates were poised to begin operations in Libya should Gadhafi ignore demands from the U.S. and its allies to end the violence, and U.S. ships in the Mediterranean were preparing to take action to help establish a no-fly zone, the Washington Post reported.

In remarks delivered at the White House, the president said the U.S., the United Kingdom, France, and Arab states agree that a cease-fire must be implemented immediately, a provision of the security council resolution.

"All attacks against civilians must stop," Obama said. Gadhafi "must stop his troops from advancing on Benghazi," the rebel stronghold in the eastern part of the country, pull back his forces from three other cities, establish water, electricity and gas supplies to all areas, and allow humanitarian assistance to reach Libyan citizens.

Related Stories

"Let me be clear, these terms are not negotiable. These terms are not subject to negotiation," the president said. If Gadhafi fails to comply with the resolution, "the international community will impose consequences, and the resolution will be enforced through military action."

However, the president ruled out the deployment of U.S. ground troops to Libya. "We are not going to use force to go beyond a well-defined goal -- specifically, the protection of civilians in Libya."

Obama said the international effort is in response to Gadhafi's "brutal suppression" of the uprising against his regime. American leadership is essential, he said, but the president stressed that the U.S. would not be acting alone. "Our British and French allies, and members of the Arab League, have already committed to take a leadership role in the enforcement of this [security council] resolution."

The president said he has directed Defense Secretary Robert Gates to assist in planning what would be a complex military operation and announced that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would travel to Paris for a meeting to discuss enforcement of the security council resolution.

"We will provide the unique capabilities that we can bring to bear to stop the violence against civilians, including enabling our European allies and Arab partners to effectively enforce a no fly zone," Obama said.

The U.N. action Thursday evening came after Gadhafi said an attack on Benghazi, a city of about 700,000 residents, was imminent and vowed that opposition fighters who resist would be shown "no mercy." But in the wake of the resolution, Libya declared an immediate cease-fire and said it would stop all military operations against the rebel uprising, news agencies reported. However, there were reports that attacks by forces loyal to Gadhafi continued on Friday.

The security council resolution, approved 10-0 with China, Russia, Germany, India and Brazil abstaining, authorizes U.N. member states "to take all necessary measures . . . to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory."

Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa criticized the U.N. vote, but said Libya "is obliged to accept" the resolution. He claimed the cease-fire "will take the country back to safety."

However, in Washington, Clinton said the U.S. would not be "responsive or impressed by words." She said America and its allies would have to see "actions on the ground, and that is not yet at all clear," the New York Times reported.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>libyaLibya uprisingmilitaryMoammar Gadhafino-fly-zoneUN Libyan resolutionUN resolutionUnited Nations Security CouncilPolitics Daily Staff2011-03-17T21:06:00+00:00Sarah Palin Heading to Israel, Taking Path of Other GOP Hopefulshttp://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/17/sarah-palin-heading-to-israel-taking-path-of-other-gop-hopefuls/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/17/sarah-palin-heading-to-israel-taking-path-of-other-gop-hopefuls/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/17/sarah-palin-heading-to-israel-taking-path-of-other-gop-hopefuls/#commentsFiled under: , , , , , , ,

In what has become almost a rite of passage for aspiring American politicians, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is heading to Israel, where next week she will meet with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and visit historic sites.

Palin, perhaps the most closely watched of all potential 2012 Republican presidential candidates, is scheduled to arrive in Israel Sunday after making a weekend speech to business leaders and politicians in New Delhi, India, the Jerusalem Post and Politico reported Thursday.

She plans to meet Monday with the conservative Netanyahu, and separately with Danny Danon, a pro-settler member of the Knesset. Palin is also expected to tour the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem and visit Nazareth, the childhood home of Jesus.

As with many politicians in both U.S. parties, strong and unwavering support for Israel is nearly an article of faith for Palin, the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee. She has criticized the Obama administration for not being strong enough in backing the Jewish state in disputes with the Arab world and Iran.

Yet she also offended some Jews when she used the loaded term "blood libel" to complain about U.S. commentators who put part of the blame for the deadly shootings in Arizona on harsh right-wing rhetoric. Palin was faulted for posting a map showing vulnerable Democratic districts in cross-hairs.

Palin's trek to Israel follows recent visits by other Republicans with presidential ambitions, including Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Haley Barbour and Rudy Giuliani.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>Binyamin Netanyahu - Israel - World LeaderdailyguidanceIsraelPolitics Daily Staff2011-03-17T12:30:00+00:00Hillary Clinton Popular With Public but Finished With Government After 2012http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/17/hillary-clinton-popular-with-public-but-finished-with-government/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/17/hillary-clinton-popular-with-public-but-finished-with-government/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/17/hillary-clinton-popular-with-public-but-finished-with-government/#commentsFiled under: , , , , ,

Nearly two out of three Americans like the job Hillary Clinton is doing as secretary of state, a new poll finds. But the former first lady and senator reaffirmed Wednesday that she is working her last government job and will get out of politics for good after 2012.

Clinton, interviewed by CNN in Cairo, said she is "moving on" after she completes her fourth year of service in the Obama administration. "I have the best job I could ever have. This is a moment in history where it is almost hard to catch your breath," she said. ". . . There isn't anything I can imagine doing after this that would be as demanding, as challenging, or rewarding."

The CNN/Opinion Research survey, taken last Friday and Saturday, said 65 percent of respondents had a favorable view of Clinton, including 92 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of independents. Thirty-one percent overall, and six out of 10 Republicans, had a negative opinion. The survey of 1,023 adults had a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.

Mrs. Clinton, who has been connected with public service for most of her adulthood, said she wants to return to private life, possibly as an advocate for women and children. If she is asked, she said she would not accept another cabinet position or the vice presidency. And she said she would not run for president in 2016. "I have no intention or any idea even of running again," Clinton said.

Watch Wolf Blitzer's interview with Clinton, courtesy CNN.



 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>dailyguidancePolitics Daily Staff2011-03-17T10:36:00+00:00New Poll Shows Public Split Over U.S. Enforcing a Libya 'No-Fly' Zonehttp://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/14/n/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/14/n/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/14/n/#commentsFiled under: , ,

In contrast to an earlier CNN poll showing a majority of Americans supporting establishment of a no-fly zone over Libya, another survey released Tuesday finds the public almost evenly split on whether the U.S. should taker such action.

A Pew Research Center poll, conducted March 10-13, shows that a slim majority (51 percent) favor increasing sanctions on Libya, but when it comes to enforcing a no-fly zone, 45 percent are opposed while 44 percent favor doing so, with 11 percent undecided.

The CNN poll said Americans favored a no-fly zone by a 56 percent to 40 percent margin, with 4 percent undecided.

Related Stories

The results of the Pew poll conflicted with the CNN poll on another point: whether the U.S. should send arms to the Libyan rebels. In the Pew poll, Americans opposed doing so by a 69 percent to 23 percent margin, with 8 percent undecided. The CNN poll said 53 percent of Americans supported send arms and supplies to the opposition while 43 percent opposed doing so, with 4 percent undecided.

In both polls, large majorities of Americans opposed bombing of Libyan air bases by the U.S. or the use of ground troops.

The Pew poll also compared public desire (or lack of it) for intervention in Libya to other crises involving wars, and widespread death and destruction. Sixty-three percent said the U.S. does not have a responsibility to act in Libya while only 27 percent support intervention, with 10 percent undecided. That contrasts with the ethnic genocide in Darfur where Americans favored action by a 51 percent to 36 percent margin, with 3 percent undecided.

Americans were split on intervention in the fighting in Kosovo in 1999, with 47 percent favoring it and 46 percent opposed, with 7 percent undecided. And, by a 64 percent to 30 percent margin, with 6 percent undecided, they said the U.S. did not have a responsibility to intervene in the conflict between Serbs and Bosnians in 1995.

The biggest reason for the reluctance to commit to a U.S. role in Libya among was concern over how much American forces are already committed to conflicts around the world. Fifty-one percent of those surveyed held this view. Nineteen percent said that the Libyan opposition might turn out to be no better than the Gadhafi regime, 13 percent did not consider Libya of vital interest to the U.S., 5 percent said it was because they do not support the use of force and 12 percent cited other reasons or were undecided.

The biggest reason cited by those who favored U.S. involvement was that it was important to show that America backs democracy.

The belief that the U.S. did not have a responsibility to act in Libya cut across party lines, with majorities of Republicans, Democrats and independents sharing that view.

Follow Poll Watch on Twitter

Visit the Poll Watch Home Page and see all the latest polls in one place

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>dailyguidanceLibyaLibyan rebelsMoammar Gadhafyno-fly zoneqaddafiBruce Drake2011-03-14T17:21:00+00:00Most Americans Back a 'No-Fly Zone' Over Libya, But Oppose Stronger Moveshttp://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/14/most-americans-back-a-no-fly-zone-over-libya-but-oppose-stron/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/14/most-americans-back-a-no-fly-zone-over-libya-but-oppose-stron/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/14/most-americans-back-a-no-fly-zone-over-libya-but-oppose-stron/#commentsFiled under: , , ,

A majority of Americans support establishing a "no-fly zone" over Libya as a way of supporting rebels there who appear to be losing ground to the forces of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, according to a CNN/Opinion Research poll conducted March 11-13. But, at the same time, most oppose more aggressive military action.

The idea of enforcing a no-fly zone to take away the Gadhafi's ability to use warplanes in the fight against his opposition has drawn support from some leading senators like Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry and John McCain, the ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee.

But although President Obama said he was keeping all options on the table in regard to Libya, other administration officials like Defense Secretary Robert Gates and White House Chief of Staff have expressed caution about moving down that path.

In the CNN poll, 56 percent of those surveyed said they supported the idea of the U.S. and other countries establishing a no-fly zone, while 40 percent were opposed, with 4 percent undecided. Fifty-three percent back sending arms and supplies to the rebels while 43 percent are opposed, with 4 percent undecided.

CNN polling director Keating Holland said, "The no-fly zone wins support from Democrats and Republicans alike, with virtually no partisan differences. That's rare in politics these days. A gender gap does exist though, which is typical for questions on military action. More than sixty percent of men favor a no-fly zone, compared to 50 percent of women."

However, the public opposes using planes and missiles to strike at Gadhafi's forces by a 62 percent to 32 percent margin, with 6 percent undecided. And, it opposes using ground troops by 76 percent to 22 percent, with 2 percent undecided.

About 7 of 10 Americans say the removal of Gadhafi is a very or somewhat important foreign policy goal for the U.S., but most of those (47 percent) are in the "somewhat important" category.

When it comes to Obama's handling of the situation, 45 percent approve and 40 percent disapprove, with 15 percent undecided. Obama gets a slightly higher mark for his handling of the unrest sweeping across many Arab nations in the Mideast, with 49 percent approving of his performance while 43 percent do not, with 8 percent undecided.

Follow Poll Watch on Twitter

Visit the Poll Watch Home Page and see all the latest polls in one place

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>dailyguidancelibyaMoammar Gadhafino fly zoneBruce Drake2011-03-14T14:05:00+00:00NATO to Libya: What Seems to Be the Problem?http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/12/nato-to-libya-what-seems-to-be-the-problem/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/12/nato-to-libya-what-seems-to-be-the-problem/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/12/nato-to-libya-what-seems-to-be-the-problem/#commentsFiled under: , , , ,


Follow the Trussell cartoons
on Twitter at ChaosTheoryPD

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>AC 360ac360anderson cooperanderson cooper 360arabcnndemocracydictatordictatorshipgadafigaddafiGadhafigenocidehuman rightslibyalibya protestslockerbieLockerbie BombingmassacreMoamar GadafiMoammar GaddafiMoammar GadhafiNATOno fly zoneno-fly zoneno-fly-zoneqaddafirebellionrevoltRichard Engelsanctionsterroristuprisingwar crimesRobert and Donna Trussell2011-03-12T18:18:00+00:00Nuclear Plant Explodes in Aftermath of Japan Quake, Meltdown a 'Possibility'http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/12/nuclear-plant-explodes-in-aftermath-of-japan-quake-death-toll/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/12/nuclear-plant-explodes-in-aftermath-of-japan-quake-death-toll/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/12/nuclear-plant-explodes-in-aftermath-of-japan-quake-death-toll/#commentsFiled under: , , ,

Fears of a meltdown continue to grow after a nuclear power plant exploded Saturday in earthquake-stricken Japan, while the country is still reeling from aftershocks, a devastating tsunami and a growing death toll.

The blast severely damaged the nuclear power plant in northern Japan, blowing the roof off one building and forcing an evacuation of the surrounding area. Japanese officials initially reported the containment vessel of the reactor at the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Station escaped major damage, thanks to a metal sheath that protected it even as the reactor's walls peeled away.

However, concerns are increasing over the possibility of a meltdown at one if not more reactors at the station. CNN is reporting an official with Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency as saying there is "the possibility" of a meltdown based on the levels of radioactive chemicals in the air. The official also said engineers have been unable to get close enough to confirm what is happening.

The AP is also reporting cooling systems have failed at another reactor on Japan's coast.

Related Stories

A radiation leak was detected earlier Saturday, but officials said they believed it was small and could be contained, the New York Times reported. Even so, tens of thousands of residents within a 12-mile radius of the wrecked plant were evacuated. Japanese workers were injecting sea water into the core of the reactor to prevent a meltdown, a step indicating the potential seriousness of the problem.

The explosion may have been triggered when the reactor's cooling system failed after the quake. Billowing white smoke shot up from the plant. "We've confirmed that the reactor container was not damaged -- the explosion didn't occur inside the reactor container," government spokesman Yukio Edano said at a news conference. "As such there was no large amount of radiation leakage outside." Several other nuclear reactors were also imperiled by the earthquake, the Washington Post said.


The official death toll approached 700 Saturday and thousands more were missing. In Minamisanriku, a city of 17,000 people, more than half the residents were unaccounted for, Japan's Kyodo News agency said. Some 70 aftershocks kept people in affected areas on edge, and much of the country's northeast coastline was under water due to the tsunami, according to The Post.

The powerful wave swept over cities and farmland in the northern part of the country. North of Tokyo, near the epicenter of the 8.9 magnitude quake, witnesses said entire neighborhoods were swallowed up by the tsunami, which was unleashed by the quake.

At a news conference in Washington Friday, President Obama said he was confident Japan would rebuild quickly -- and he praised the resourcefulness of its people and their strong economy. "It has dealt with (natural disasters) before and will deal with them again. And Japan, I'm sure, will come back stronger than ever -- hopefully with our help," he said. Part of that help may come from one U.S. aircraft carrier already off the coast of Japan. Another one is on its way.

On Capitol Hill, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said Republicans "share and support the president's commitment to bring America's resources to bear to help Japan recover. And we commend the actions that he's taken so far."

Watch video of the plant explosion, courtesy of the Associated Press.




 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>japanjapan earthquaketsunamiPolitics Daily Staff2011-03-12T14:25:00+00:00Obama on Oil: Tapping Strategic Reserves Possible, But It's a Last Resorthttp://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/11/obama-on-oil-opening-strategic-reserves-possible-but-its-a-la/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/11/obama-on-oil-opening-strategic-reserves-possible-but-its-a-la/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/11/obama-on-oil-opening-strategic-reserves-possible-but-its-a-la/#commentsFiled under: , , , , , , ,

President Obama has not ruled out tapping America's strategic oil reserves if oil prices continue to rise, but he added such a move would first require a "severe disruption of supply."

Increasing gas prices, triggered by the unrest in the Middle East, were among the topics the president addressed at a Friday afternoon press conference that touched on the devastating Japanese earthquake, America's possible involvement in Libya, and the budget stalemate in Congress.

Obama said the opening of the country's strategic oil reserves remains a possibility, but he declined to specify under what circumstances the reserves would be opened, other than to say it would take a major event -- one similar to 1970s OPEC crisis, or one that severely hobbled production capabilities, as when Hurricane Katrina shut down oil refineries in the Gulf.

He added that opening the reserves could be done expediently -- that the process "was teed up" and would not require months or weeks of preparation.

However, the president also maintained that now there is "no shortage of supply" in the global oil market and said the real problem is uncertainty. "We are confident about our ability to fill any potential gaps in supply," he said, noting that Libya in particular did not account for a significant portion of overall world production.

With oil prices edging up in recent weeks, some analysts have called for increased domestic drilling. Obama shot down suggestions the White House has discouraged it, saying, "Any notion that my administration has shut down oil production might make for a good political soundbite, but it doesn't match up with reality."

The proof, he said, is that the United States is "better prepared for supply disruptions" than in previous years, noting that "Today we use seven percent less oil than we did in 2005." The president attributed the decrease in part to more fuel-efficient cars.

Last year, American domestic oil production reached its highest level since 2003, and that for the first time in over a decade, oil imports accounted for less than half of U.S. consumption, he added.

The president insisted that comprehensive energy reform is the only way America can end its dependence on foreign oil. "We've been having this conversation for nearly four decades now," he said. Vowing not to hand reform off to the next administration, Obama said, "I think the American people are tired of that. They're tired of talk."

Switching to Libya, Obama remained cautious regarding any military measures the U.S. was prepared to take, and instead offered that America had "an obligation to prevent" violence akin to the situations in Rwanda and Bosnia. But he was careful to say there's no evidence that violence on that scale is occuring in Libya."I'm not saying that's what happening," he clarified, "and [that] we're prepared to step in" right now.

The president also addressed the budget war currently being fought in Congress, calling for both sides to come together and compromise. He opened the door to another potential two-week extension to continue funding the federal government, but criticized any temporary measures beyond that as "irresponsible."

Obama placed some blame for the stalemate on Republican leaders, accusing them of filling their approved House budget with a raft of "political" riders -- ones he felt had no place in a budget bill. He further maintained that Democrats were going to "hold the line on critical programs" that he believed were key to America's future, including education funding and reform efforts.

Regarding the recent earthquake in Japan, Obama said he was "heartbroken." He assured the public that the White House was coordinating with the Japanese government regarding security concerns, including possible nuclear containment from damaged reactors.

American efforts to assist the Japanese government, he said, would likely be centered around "lift capacity" and cleanup efforts. Obama remained confident that the Japanese would rebound from the crisis, given the fact that the nation was "so resourceful, with such an advanced economy." Still, he said, the tragedy of the quake was being felt across the world: "Humanity is one," he said.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>Alex Wagner2011-03-11T14:51:00+00:00Obama: U.S. Is Ready to Assist Japan in Wake of Earthquake, Tsunamihttp://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/11/obama-orders-fema-to-gear-up-for-tsunami-impact-on-hawaii-west/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/11/obama-orders-fema-to-gear-up-for-tsunami-impact-on-hawaii-west/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/11/obama-orders-fema-to-gear-up-for-tsunami-impact-on-hawaii-west/#commentsFiled under: , ,

In the aftermath of Japan's massive earthquake, President Obama said the United States is "ready to help the Japanese people in this time of great trial."

The president later spoke with Prime Minister Naoto Kan and offered assistance.

Update: An explosion severely damaged a nuclear power plant in northern Japan on Saturday, blowing the roof off one building and forcing an evacuation of the surrounding area because of a radiation leak. The blast rocked the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station and smoke billowed up from a reactor, its containment vessel still protected by metal casing.

At a news conference Friday, Obama said he was confident Japan would rebuild quickly, praising the strong economy and resourcefulness of the people.

"It has dealt with (natural disasters) before and will deal with them again. And Japan, I'm sure, will come back stronger than ever -- hopefully with our help," he said.

Obama was awakened at 4 a.m. by Chief of Staff William Daley, who informed him of the 8.9 magnitude quake, the largest in Japanese history, according to the Associated Press.

The official death toll stood at 574 on Saturday, but a government spokesman said at least 1,000 had perished. Thousands more were missing following the earthquake, which triggered more than 70 aftershocks and a powerful tsunami that swept over cities and farmland in the northern part of the country.

Obama got a mid-morning briefing from FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, and other senior officials who updated him on the evolving situation, including "actions being taken to assist U.S. states and territories that could be affected," the White House said.

The quake damaged a nuclear plant about 170 miles northeast of Tokyo. The New York Times reported that thousands of residents in a six-mile radius of the facility were evacuated and the government declared a state of emergency. Experts estimated radiation levels were 1,000 times above normal in a reactor control room after the quake damaged the plant's cooling system.

The president said he asked Energy Secretary Steven Chu to be prepared to assist with any breaches in Japan's nuclear power system, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Three U.S. warships in southeast Asia were ordered out to sea to reposition themselves in case they are directed to provide assistance to Japan, an American 7th Fleet spokesman told the Times. The Pentagon said there were no reports of damage to American military facilities or naval vessels.

The U.S. would "continue to closely monitor tsunamis around Japan and the Pacific going forward," Obama said. He instructed FEMA to be ready to assist areas that could be affected by the tidal surges. Waves as high as seven feet hit parts of Hawaii but little damage was reported. Powerful surges also reached the U.S. west coast, causing boats to sink in northern California. At least four people in California were swept out to sea and one was still missing.

Watch video of the scene in Japan, courtesy the Associated Press.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>disasterearthquakeJapanjapan destructionjapanese earthquaketsunamiPolitics Daily Staff2011-03-11T09:01:00+00:00White House Disputes Predictions That Gadhafy Will Crush Rebelshttp://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/10/white-house-disputes-predictions-that-gadhafy-will-crush-rebels/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/10/white-house-disputes-predictions-that-gadhafy-will-crush-rebels/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/10/white-house-disputes-predictions-that-gadhafy-will-crush-rebels/#commentsFiled under: , , , ,

Top U.S. intelligence officials said Thursday they expect that Moammar Gadhafy will continue his bloody fight for survival and eventually crush the rebels and opposition groups that now hold almost half of Libya. But the White House sharply disputed that assessment, and is sending Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to meet with the rebels on the Egyptian border next week.

The dueling assessments of Gadhafy's fortunes emerged as the Obama administration turned aside growing demands that it take more concerted action, including military steps, to bring down the Libyan dictator and end the bloodshed.

Related Stories

In Brussels, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said the NATO defense ministers agreed that NATO -- which currently has combat forces fighting insurgents in Afghanistan -- would act in Libya "only if there is a demonstrable need, a sound legal basis, and strong regional support.''

In Washington, James R. Clapper, director of national intelligence, raised new objections to imposing a no-fly zone, saying that Libya has a "substantial" air defense network, including "a large, large number'' of portable, shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles, that would threaten U.S. and allied aircraft flying over the country.

Also in Washington Thursday, White House National Security Adviser Thomas Donilon told reporters that the United States is sending civilian disaster relief specialists into eastern Libya to work with the opposition's interim government and international organizations to organize humanitarian relief. These teams, which are trained to operate in austere and dangerous situations, will go in without security or any U.S. military escort, Donilon said.

Donilon insisted that the United States has acted swiftly and boldly to meet the mounting crisis by organizing international support against Gadhafy, imposing sanctions, freezing $32 billion in Libyan assets, and by leading international demands that Gadhafy step down.

He said the White House has strongly warned Libyan loyalists fighting for Gadhafy that they face a sharp choice between quitting now or continuing the bloodshed and being brought to justice someday.

"History is not on the side of Moammar Gadhafy; it is on the side of the Libyan people,'' insisted White House spokesman Ben Rhodes, who along with Donilon briefed reporters by telephone.

But Clapper, the nation's senior-most intelligence officer, and Army Lt. Gen. Ronald L. Burgess, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, presented a far grimmer picture of the rebels and opposition demonstrators eventually being beaten in a relentless and bloody war of attrition.

Clapper said the view of the intelligence community is "kind of a stalemate back and forth, but I think over the longer term the regime will prevail.'' He acknowledged that the conflict could stagger to a close, with rebels holding parts of eastern Libya and Gadhafy still in control of Tripoli. Or Libya could shatter into fiefdoms and tribal enclaves like Somalia -- a fertile incubator for Islamist extremists.

Libya has more than 30 major surface-to-air missile sites and a radar complex protecting the coastal cities where most Libyans live. Gadhafy's air forces include 75 or 80 aircraft, of which about a third are strike fighters, Clapper said. The jets are aging and not well maintained but have been able to complete some bombing runs. But, he said, "they're somewhat akin to the gang that can't shoot straight, since they're doing this visually and have not caused a very many casualties.''

Clapper and Burgess, testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, said two elite Libyan army units, the 9th and 32nd brigades, are loyal to Gadhafy, well equipped with tanks, artillery and air defenses, and highly disciplined. They suggested that Gadhafy's forces could hold out indefinitely even with an international arms embargo.

Gadhafy "seems to have staying power, unless some other dynamic changes at this time,'' Burgess said. "Initially, the momentum was with the other side. That has started to shift. Whether or not it has fully moved to Gadhafy's side at this time I think is not clear.'' But the initiative, he said, "may actually be on the regime side at this time.''

Clapper's statements caused a furor on Capitol Hill. If Gadhafy's forces can beat back the rebels, said Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, all the more reason for the United States to intervene now with force. The situation "really calls on us to act quickly, not to let this happen,'' Lieberman said.

"We're being asked by an escalating chorus of voices from within the Arab world to please help the opposition to Gadhafy,'' Lieberman said, adding that this is "a new chance for us to link up with the aspirations of people in the Arab world.''

Clapper's prediction of defeat for the Libyan opposition prompted a furious Sen.Lindsey Graham of South Carolina to demand that Clapper resign or be fired.

"The situation in Libya remains tenuous and the director's comments today on Gadhafi's 'staying power' are not helpful to our national security interests,'' Graham said in a statement, using a different spelling of the leader's name. "His comments will make the situation more difficult for those opposing Gadhafi ... and undercut our national efforts to bring about the desired result of Libya moving from dictator to democracy."

At the White House, Donilon argued that superior military forces alone can't guarantee Gadhafy's survival. He said the growing isolation of the Libyan government, the cumulative effect of the sanctions, and the freezing of Gadhafy's assets are putting inexorable pressure on the regime.

Most important, Donilon said, is the change that has ignited popular political upheaval across North Africa and the Arab world: armed repression no longer has the power it once had.

"The fear dynamic has been lost,'' Donilon said. "People -- and especially young people -- have confronted regimes that have been repressing them ... it's hard to overstate the significance of this historic change, really movements of people pursuing their aspirations in nonviolent fashion.''

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>fighting in libyaLibyalibya crisislibya protestsLibya uprisingLibya warlibyan rebelsMoammar GadhafyU.S. intelligence officials and libyaWhite House National Security Adviser Thomas DonilonDavid Wood2011-03-10T19:24:00+00:00Biden in Russia: Pegs More U.S. Trade to Corruption Cleanuphttp://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/10/biden-in-russia-pegs-more-u-s-trade-to-corruption-cleanup/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/10/biden-in-russia-pegs-more-u-s-trade-to-corruption-cleanup/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/10/biden-in-russia-pegs-more-u-s-trade-to-corruption-cleanup/#commentsFiled under: , , , , , ,

He mangled a couple of Russian names and scolded the government for not dealing more forcefully with corruption, but Vice President Biden got his point across in a speech at Moscow State University: the United States wants to do more business with the Russian Federation.

"Some say, 'How can you say those things out loud and expect to have a better relationship?'" Biden said Thursday in remarks to students, business leaders and politicians. "They are necessary to have a better relationship."

Biden said the United States supports Russia's entry into the World Trade Organization and believes that would bring expanded trade between the two countries. But he said the government must also respect the rule of law. Biden complained that a corporate lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky, was arrested and died in prison after accusing the police of fraud -- "before even being tried."

Using a teleprompter, he got Magnitsky's name right, but flubbed on the great composer Tchaikovsky and missed on Mikhail Khodorkovsky, an oil tycoon who has been imprisoned since 2003 on charges heavy with political implications.

In the context of the struggles for more freedom in the Arab world, Biden urged "all of you students here, don't compromise on the basic elements of democracy."

Earlier, he spoke with Russian opposition leaders at the U.S. ambassador's residence, and also met separately with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. When Putin said to the vice president that he wanted to see visa-free travel between the U.S. and Russia, Biden replied, "Good idea."

During the portion of their meeting open to the press, Biden told Putin it was in the interest of both nations to see "our relationship grow . . . When other countries around the globe have a problem they either go to Moscow or Washington. They don't go to other capitals."

The vice president is in the midst of a five-day trip through Finland, Russia and Moldova.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>Tom Diemer2011-03-10T14:15:00+00:00Obama: Here's Your Change, Sirhttp://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/10/obama-heres-your-change-sir/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/10/obama-heres-your-change-sir/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/10/obama-heres-your-change-sir/#commentsFiled under: , , , , , , ,



Follow the Trussell cartoons
on Twitter at ChaosTheoryPD

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>afghan warAfghanistan warAfghanistanWarAfghanWarBarack ObamaBarackObamademocratic partyDemocraticPartyDemocratsgopguantanamoGuantanamo Bayguantanamo bay prisonGuantanamoBayGuantanamoBayPrisonIraq warIraqWarliberalsmilitary tribunalsMilitaryTribunalsobamaObama AdministrationRepublicanRepublican PartyRepublicanPartyrepublicanstax cut dealTax cutstax cuts for the wealthyTaxCutDealTaxCutsTaxCutsForTheWealthyRobert and Donna Trussell2011-03-10T12:25:00+00:0082nd Airborne Quick-Strike Force Gives Obama New Option in Mideast Criseshttp://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/08/82nd-airborne-quick-strike-force-gives-obama-new-option-in-midea/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/08/82nd-airborne-quick-strike-force-gives-obama-new-option-in-midea/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/08/82nd-airborne-quick-strike-force-gives-obama-new-option-in-midea/#commentsFiled under: , , , , , ,

FORT BRAGG, N.C. -- As revolution zigzags chaotically across the Middle East and North Africa, the U.S. Army is sharpening its readiness to launch rapid-reaction, kick-in-the-door combat forces, adding capabilities and skills that had atrophied during a decade of counterinsurgency missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

For the first time in years, the 82nd Airborne Division here has stood up its "ready brigade," trained to a razor's edge and poised to move instantly, as one of its paratroopers said, "to the sound of the guns."

This new capability gives President Obama the option to swiftly land powerful military forces anywhere in the world for missions that could include evacuating American citizens, safeguarding fragile new democracies from counterattack, or violently taking down a renegade regime.

At the same time, the Army is considering reinforcing this Global Response Force with heavier combat units that could swiftly reinforce the 82nd Airborne's lightly armed paratroopers.

With these steps, said the division commander, Maj. Gen. Jim L. Huggins, the United States is regaining the "strategic depth" it lacked during much of the past decade when the Army was struggling to man the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and simply lacked the troops to set aside for crisis response. "The resources are flowing, and we are building that capability back," he said.

And it's coming just in time. Few may hope more devoutly for peaceful, democratic change in the Middle East than the division's 20,000 hardened war-fighters, many of whom are facing their fifth or sixth combat deployment.

But hope is not a strategy.

Instead, Huggins' soldiers are honing their skills at "forcible entry" -- the ability to parachute into enemy territory with their armored gun trucks and 155mm howitzers, seize and defend an airfield to enable reinforcements to land, and fight their way to the objective. Safely landing 2,000 paratroopers and equipment at night on a three-mile-long, blacked-out drop zone and then swiftly organizing and moving out, Huggins observed dryly, "takes some practice."

But as political upheaval boils, from nuclear-armed Pakistan to the oilfields of the Persian Gulf fiefdoms and North Africa, sending in paratroopers may not be enough if heavy armed conflict begins to threaten vital U.S. national interests.

With the encouragement of Gen. Martin Dempsey, selected to become the Army's new chief this spring, the Army is considering adding "medium and heavy combat brigades" to the Global Response Force, said Col. Dan Baggio, a spokesman for the Army's Forces Command. The units being evaluated, which could include elements of a Stryker brigade and even heavy armored brigades, are stationed in the United States and would have to be airlifted into combat.

The idea is to provide a heavy force quickly for major combat, Dempsey wrote in a new addition to the Army's operations field manual, to "gain the initiative . . . and set conditions for stability operations" to follow.

All these steps seem in sync with an emerging vision for a leaner, smaller, faster Army after Iraq and Afghanistan. In a widely noted speech last month at West Point, Defense Secretary Robert Gates memorably trashed the idea of sending a massive land force into war in the Middle East or Africa, saying big wars should be the responsibility primarily of naval forces and aviation. But he strongly endorsed the "strategic rationale for swift-moving expeditionary forces" as "self-evident" for counterterrorism, rapid reaction, disaster response, stability or security force assistance missions.

The Obama administration also has proposed cutting the size of the Army by 27,000 soldiers beginning in 2015, assuming that by then the Afghan war will be winding down, Gates said last week.

Expanding from the narrow mission of counterinsurgency to quick-reaction missions -- which might demand a full spectrum of skills, from providing disaster relief to fighting the opening battles of World War III -- marks an abrupt change for the 82nd Airborne Division. For a decade it has fought in small units, squads of nine to 12 soldiers and platoons of 30 or 40, working with local soldiers and villagers in a kind of armed nation-building. These operations required little or no coordination with neighboring units.

But now, with its ready brigade unhooked from this counterinsurgency mission, it can refocus on the skills required for larger company- and battalion-size maneuvers involving hundreds of soldiers in tight coordination with artillery, mortars, helicopter gunships and Air Force strike fighters. And the paratroopers, relieved of counterinsurgency duty, can catch up on the jumping skills they hadn't been able to practice in Iraq or Afghanistan. Before 2001, it was common to see a staff sergeant here with 60 or 70 jumps to his credit; today, a senior enlisted paratrooper may have fewer than 20, said 1st Sgt. Christian Requejo of the 2nd Battalion, 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment.

They are getting the practice. In one exercise last month, the division and the Air Force coordinated an airdrop of 1,600 paratroopers, together with eight armored Humvee gun trucks, two howitzers, a dump truck and a grader (for building airfield defensive fortifications) from an air armada of 27 C-17 and C-130 airlifters.

Doing all that quickly and safely requires an immense amount of preparation. "We were not used to maneuvering as a company or a battalion," said one company commander, Capt. Mike Thompson. "It takes meticulous planning -- or it can be a goat-screw."

Early on a recent, chilly morning, a clutch of captains and lieutenants of the division's ready brigade gathered to rehearse a complex mission: coordinating air strikes from F-16s and attack helicopters with artillery and mortar fire as paratroopers maneuvered through bands of enemy to seize a small village.

A scale model of the terrain was laid out on the grass behind their barracks, with tape marking out routes and plastic blocks representing houses. In what is called an ROC (rehearsal of concept) drill, the lieutenants who lead platoons walked through their actions as they engaged the enemy and made quick decisions on whether calling in artillery strikes would endanger nearby troops or conflict with the Apache helicopter gunships and UAVs orbiting over the battlefield.

Their battalion commander, Lt. Col. Marcus Evans, is a demanding teacher and coach. "If you haven't run through this four or five times with a chalk board before you come out here, you're missing something," he told his young officers. "Drill it, drill it, drill it!" And plan for the unexpected, he added. "We can't war-game all the contingencies -- but we can do the top 10 and rehearse them!"

Brigades training in these skills will get severely tested at the Army's National Training Center at Fort Irwin, Calif., which has built extensive facilities for counterinsurgency training, including mock Afghan villages and Pashtun-speaking role players. But starting this August, the NTC will switch from training only for counterinsurgency, and instead will hold six month-long war games over the course of a year, pitting visiting brigades against the battle-hardened 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment in simulated, but grueling, full-spectrum combat.

None of the skills and capabilities the Army is regaining may be applicable as upheaval sweeps across the Middle East and North Africa. As Gates and others have noticed, the Pentagon has a perfect record in predicting where and when future conflict will erupt: It has gotten it wrong every time. But that is one reason for the "full-spectrum" preparation of the 82nd Airborne Division's ready brigade.

"We've been deficient as a great power in being overly committed to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without having any additional capacity to do anything else that could come along," said John Nagl, a former West Point armor officer and Rhodes scholar who is president of the Center for a New American Security, a nonpartisan research institution in Washington, D.C. "The Army was really tapped out."

"Particularly with what's going on in the world, it's not hard to imagine the president needing a brigade of the 82nd at short notice," Nagl said. "But having that capability doesn't mean we're going to use it."

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>82nd AirborneArab AwakeningArab uprisingObama LibyaObama MideastObama military optionsU.S. ArmyU.S. military interventionDavid Wood2011-03-08T22:24:00+00:00Libya and Iraq: Two Ways of Opposing a Tyrant -- but One Stole the Nation's Pridehttp://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/05/libya-and-iraq-two-ways-of-opposing-a-tyrant-but-one-stole-t/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/05/libya-and-iraq-two-ways-of-opposing-a-tyrant-but-one-stole-t/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/05/libya-and-iraq-two-ways-of-opposing-a-tyrant-but-one-stole-t/#commentsFiled under: , , , , , , , , , ,

The historic anti-authoritarian, pro-democratic uprisings that have swept across North Africa raise an intriguing and troubling question: Absent American intervention, could a similar movement have unseated Iraq's Saddam Hussein?

Communism came to Eastern Europe in the kit bag of the Red Army, according to the old glib-but-accurate gibe. This is essentially how the U.S. military installed democracy in Iraq.

Related Stories

It didn't have to be that way. In the wake of Operation Desert Storm in 1991, which pushed the Iraqi army out of Kuwait, U.S. policy-makers urged Iraq's Shia and Kurds to rise up against the reeling regime. Then, when they did, American forces left them to be crushed by the dictator's untender mercies (just as the Dulles brothers did with Hungarian freedom fighters in 1956). Under George W. Bush, neo-cons insisted that the oppressed and demoralized Iraqi people would never again summon the wherewithal to overthrow Hussein on their own, so the U.S. had to invade.

However, events in Libya, Egypt and Tunisia challenge that assumption. True, Iraq's Sunni-dominated army was in no way a potentially neutral (and decisive) third force, as it was in Tunisia and Egypt. At the time, political observers saw just one alternative to invasion for deposing Hussein: a bloody, U.S.-instigated military coup. Without the invasion, Bush administration strategists might now argue, the regime could have lasted another decade, and made untold mischief in the region. But what if they were wrong?

What has been sacrificed in the intervening years? For us, thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. On the Iraqi side, hundreds of thousands of lives -- many, if not most, civilians -- and untold damage to infrastructure. But in the process, something more enduring was also taken from the Iraqi people: their history, and not just the antiquities looted from the National Museum in the wake of the invasion.

Unlike other nations in Europe, the Americas, Africa and Asia that cherish their revolutionary and anti-colonial origins, Iraqis will always know that their freedom was handed to them by a foreign power. Even the war's greatest photo op -- pulling down Saddam's statue in a Baghdad square -- was accomplished with a U.S. military vehicle.

In Libya, Western military intervention may yet prove crucial -- it's no coincidence the U.S. Marine anthem includes the phrase, "to the shores of Tripoli," recalling another action. But if it does there will be little question that the bulk of the credit should go to the Libyan people who mounted the insurrection, doing their own fighting and dying in the face of daunting odds.

As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told the House Foreign Affairs Committee Tuesday, "We are also very conscious of the desire by the Libyan opposition forces that they be seen as doing this by themselves on behalf of the Libyan people, that there not be outside intervention by any external force. Because they want this to have been their accomplishment. We respect that."

Even Iraq's foreign minister, Hoshiyar Zebari, acknowledged the lesson in his opening remarks to the Arab League in Cairo on Wednesday, saying all of the region's governments "desire for no foreign intervention" in Libya.

"We hope the Libyan people can overcome these difficult conditions, and that the Libyan leaders take brave stands to stop bloodshed and respect the legitimate desires and rights of its people to live in a free, democratic nation," Zebari said, according to a Reuters report.

Even if, in the end, Western military intervention does prove critical to victory, it will fall into the category of support, much like the French, Polish and Irish assistance provided to the 18th century American revolutionaries. American conservatives don't like to admit it, but the French fleet ensured the colonists' final triumph at Yorktown.

In Afghanistan, the national narrative was already established long before U.S. troops arrived. The country has defeated foreign invaders and occupiers for centuries, up to and including the Red Army of the Soviet Union. In all likelihood, they will simply wait out the Americans and the client regime in Kabul, and go back to telling their country's glorious story in classrooms and around campfires.

All that has been taken from the Iraqis -- forever.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>Iraq warlibyaMoammar GadhafiSaddam HusseinMark I. Pinsky2011-03-05T22:00:00+00:00Obama Says U.S. Military Action Possible in Libya, Authorizes Planes for Airlifthttp://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/03/obama-says-u-s-military-action-possible-in-libya-authorizes-pl/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/03/obama-says-u-s-military-action-possible-in-libya-authorizes-pl/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/03/obama-says-u-s-military-action-possible-in-libya-authorizes-pl/#commentsFiled under: , , , , ,

Using some of his sharpest language to date, President Obama on Thursday called for Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi to "step down from power and leave," and would not rule out U.S. military action in the region, including imposing a possible no-fly zone.

Obama also said he had approved use of American civilian and military aircraft to assist in regional evacuations.

Speaking at a joint press conference with Mexican President Felipe Calderon, Obama said he had instructed the Departments of State and Defense to present him with a "full range of options," explaining that he did not want the United States to be "hamstrung" in any possible situation.

But the president stressed that any military action would be in consultation -- and coordination -- with the international community and would have to be in the "best interests of the Libyan people." He highlighted broad multilateral actions taken to date on the issue, including recently imposed U.N. sanctions.

Related Stories

Saying that "history was moving against" the embattled Libyan leader, Obama spoke to the increasing violence between armed units loyal to Gadhafi and rebel forces, conceding that "there is the danger of a stalemate that over time could be bloody. And that is something we are obviously considering."

The president said that the United States would be positioned to act rapidly in the event of a humanitarian crisis or a "situation in which defenseless civilians were finding themselves trapped or in great danger," but declined to detail -- or rule out -- what those measures might be.

Beyond Libya, Presidents Calderon and Obama spoke to cross-border drug violence between the United States and Mexico, and reaffirmed their joint commitment to stemming the flow of weapons, cash and drug smugglers across the border. Obama also announced that a long-standing cross-border trucking dispute had been resolved -- one that would give Mexican trucks access to U.S. roads.

In the wake of the killing of Jamie Zapata -- a U.S. special agent on duty in Mexico -- President Obama said he would not permit American drug enforcement agents to carry weapons while in other countries, and would instead respect their rule of law. He said U.S. officials have made a request to extradite the suspect to the U.S. and was confident that the "full weight of the law" would be brought to bear on the case.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>no-fly-zoneAlex Wagner2011-03-03T15:00:00+00:00Poll: Voters Like Obama Better Than His Policieshttp://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/03/poll-voters-like-obama-better-than-his-policies/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/03/poll-voters-like-obama-better-than-his-policies/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/03/poll-voters-like-obama-better-than-his-policies/#commentsFiled under: , , , , , , , , , ,

About three-quarters of voters like President Obama personally, but a small majority don't like his policies, according to a Quinnipiac University poll conducted Feb. 21-28.

The numbers break down like this:

-- Forty-one percent of those surveyed like Obama and his policies. That includes about three-quarters of Democrats, a little over a third of independents and 7 percent of Republicans.

-- Thirty-three percent like Obama but not his policies. Forty-four percent of Republicans are in the category, as are 20 percent of Democrats and 36 percent of independents.

-- Nineteen percent like neither his person nor his policies. Forty-one percent of Republicans feel that way, as do 19 percent of independents. Only 1 percent of Democrats subscribe to that view.

-- The category with almost no one in it is those who like his policies but don't like him. Only 1 percent fit that description.

That adds up to 74 percent who like him personally and 52 percent who don't like his policies. Five percent of those surveyed were undecided.

The percentage of those who like both Obama and his policies declined three points since Quinnipiac last asked this in January, while those who say they like the person but not the policies increased by four points.

Looking ahead to 2012, 47 percent say Obama does not deserve re-election compared to 45 percent who say he does, with 7 percent undecided. The margin of error is 2.3 points. Eighty-six percent of Republicans say he does not deserve another term, while 82 percent of Democrats say he does. Independents say he shouldn't be re-elected by a 50 percent-to-42 percent margin, with 8 percent undecided. Women are more favorable to another Obama term than men, with 51 percent of women saying he should get four more years and 53 percent of men saying he shouldn't.

Obama's showing on the 2012 question was a little better than last November, when 49 percent said he didn't deserve another term and 43 percent said he did, with 9 percent undecided.

Fifty-eight percent don't approve of the way Obama is handling the federal deficit, while 36 percent approve, with 6 percent undecided. Independents disapprove by a 66-percent-to-29-percent margin, with 5 percent undecided.

On the economy, 59 percent disapprove of Obama's performance compared to 38 percent who approve, with 4 percent undecided. Independents disapprove by 64 percent to 34 percent, with 2 percent undecided.

However, the disapproval of Obama on the economy does not mean a clear edge for the Republicans. Voters split at 45 percent each on the question of whether they trust Obama or the Republicans more to do a better job. Ten percent are undecided. Independents side with the Republicans by 47 percent to 39 percent, with 13 percent undecided. Voters do give Republicans a slight edge when it comes the deficit, preferring them over Obama by 46 percent to 43 percent, with 11 percent undecided.

Obama gets better marks on his handling of foreign policy than on the deficit or the economy, but is still not in positive territory. Forty-five percent disapprove of his performance, while 43 percent approve, with 12 percent undecided. That shows slippage for Obama from January, when 47 percent approved and 38 percent disapproved, with 15 percent undecided.

Voters still don't like Obama when it comes to his health care policies. Fifty-six percent disapprove of them while 40 percent approve, with 4 percent undecided. The level of disapproval is just under the 58 percent high recorded in two Quinnipiac polls last year.

Going back to a contentious issue during the debate over the extension of the Bush-era tax cuts, the poll found that, by a 2-to-1 margin, voters believed that raising taxes on households with income over $250,000 should be a main part of any government approach to the deficit. Democrats and independents overwhelmingly are in favor of that, and it even gets support from 42 percent of Republicans.

When it comes to cutting the deficit, Quinnipiac also explored public attitudes about targeting defense spending and sacrosanct entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. More than 7 out of 10 voters opposed cutting Social Security or Medicare benefits and 59 percent were against cuts in Medicaid. However, voters were roughly split on whether defense spending should be touched or not.

Asked if they had to choose which of those four programs should be cut the most, 49 percent said it should be defense spending, 22 percent singled out Medicaid, 8 percent said Social Security and 7 percent said Medicare.

Looking at the flip side of that question -- choosing which programs should be cut the least -- 36 percent wanted to minimize any cuts to Social Security, 23 percent felt the same way about defense spending, followed by 20 percent who cited Medicare and 14 percent who wanted to protect Medicaid the most.

One of the hot-button issues in the budget debate this year is funding for National Public Radio, an issue that escalated with Republicans after the highly publicized firing of Fox commentator Juan Williams from the job he held at NPR. The House voted last month to end the funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, through which NPR gets a small amount of money, but the Senate is unlikely to go along with full elimination.

Forty-nine percent opposed cutting the funding, while 40 percent were in favor, with 11 percent undecided. Republicans favored eliminating the funding by 54 percent to 33 percent, with 13 percent undecided; Democrats opposed doing so by 62 percent to 27 percent, with 11 percent undecided; and independents opposed cutting the funding by 50 percent to 40 percent, with 9 percent undecided.


Follow Poll Watch on Twitter

Visit the Poll Watch Home Page and see all the latest polls in one place

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>dailyguidanceBruce Drake2011-03-03T06:30:00+00:00