Don't get caught in the dark!
LED technology makes these waterproof flashlights compact & super bright.
http://pd.gophercentral.com/u/1113/c/186/a/3289
------------------------------------------------------------
THE PROGRESSIVE REVIEW - March 10, 2011
Discord Fills Washington on Possible Libya Intervention
by: David E. Sanger and Thom Shanker
The New York Times News Service
Washington - Nearly three weeks after Libya erupted in
what may now turn into a protracted civil war, the
politics of military intervention to speed the ouster of
Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi grow more complicated by the day
? for both the White House and Republicans.
President Obama, appearing Monday morning with Australia's
prime minister, tried to raise the pressure on Colonel
Qaddafi further by talking about "a range of potential
options, including potential military options" against
the embattled Libyan leader.
Despite Mr. Obama's statement, interviews with military
officials and other administration officials describe a
number of risks, some tactical and others political, to
American intervention in Libya.
Of most concern to the president himself, one high-level
aide said, is the perception that the United States would
once again be meddling in the Middle East, where it has
overturned many a leader, including Saddam Hussein. Some
critics of the United States in the region ? as well as
some leaders ? have already claimed that a Western
conspiracy is stoking the revolutions that have overtaken
the Middle East.
"He keeps reminding us that the best revolutions are
completely organic," the senior official said, quoting
the president.
At the same time, there are persistent voices ? in Congress
and even inside the administration ? arguing that Mr. Obama
is moving too slowly. They contend that there is too much
concern about perceptions, and that the White House is too
squeamish because of Iraq.
Furthermore, they say a military caught up in two difficult
wars has exaggerated the risks of imposing a no-fly zone
over Libya, the tactic discussed most often.
The American military is also privately skeptical of
humanitarian gestures that put the lives of troops at
risk for the cause of the moment, while being of only
tenuous national interest.
Some of these critics seem motivated by political
advantage. Others, including the chairman of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, John Kerry, who is among
Mr. Obama's closest allies, warn of repeating mistakes
made in Iraqi Kurdistan, Rwanda, and Bosnia and Herzegovina
by failing to step in and halt a slaughter.
The most vocal camp, led by Senators John McCain, the
2008 Republican nominee for president, and Joseph I.
Lieberman, the Connecticut independent and another hawk
on Libyan intervention, say the central justification for
establishing a no-fly zone over Libya is that the rebel
leaders themselves are seeking military assistance to end
decades of dictatorship.
It is hardly an effort to impose American will in the
Muslim world, Mr. Lieberman argued in an interview on
Monday.
"We have to try and help those who are offering an alter-
native future to Libya," Mr. Lieberman said, sounding
much like Mr. Obama at the White House on Monday. "We
cannot allow them to be stifled or stopped by brutal
actions of the Libyan government."
But even the critics acknowledge that the best outcome
would be for the United States not to go it alone, but
join other nations or international organizations, in
particular NATO, the Arab League or the African Union.
Mr. Lieberman and others argue that the risks of waiting
may be far greater than the risk of an early, decisive
military intervention. He acknowledged that as in Iraq,
the United States might unleash an uncertain future of
tribal rivalry and chaos, in a country that has no
institutions prepared to fill the vacuum if Colonel
Qaddafi is driven from power.
Yet, he argued: "It's hard to imagine any new government
growing out of this opposition that is worse than Qaddafi."
------------------------------------------------------------
YOUR VIDEO SNACK BAR
Top Viewed Videos...
1. Who Knew? Amazing Elephants
http://c.gophercentral.com/3hDb
2. Day of the Kamikaze
http://c.gophercentral.com/LCUd
3. Alfred Hitchcock Montage
http://c.gophercentral.com/mL0V
4. Silent Drill Team In Action
http://c.gophercentral.com/mMX4
5. Guess Who? - When They Were Young
http://c.gophercentral.com/d0wP
6. One For The Money, Two for the Show.
http://c.gophercentral.com/XTko
------------------------------------------------------------
On television Mr. McCain has made similar points, and
portrayed Mr. Obama as indecisive and weak. But curiously,
in a sign of the uncertainties about how the politics
of an American intervention would play out, few of the
potential nominees for the 2012 Republican presidential
ticket have expressed a strong opinion.
For the administration, Mr. Kerry's view is more trouble-
some, given that he is a normally a strong ally on foreign
policy issues. He was a fierce critic of the war in Iraq,
but he sees Libya as a different matter.
He has pushed the White House to do more ? including
"cratering" Libya's airfields so the planes cannot take
off.
Mr. Kerry, who was openly siding with officials who want
the president to take a stronger public stance, said he
was pushing the administration to "prepare for all
eventualities" and warned that "showing reticence in a
huge public way is not the best option."
"You want to be prepared if he is bombing people, and
killing his own people," he said, referring to Colonel
Qaddafi. The Libyan people, he said, would "look defense-
less and we would look feckless ? you have to be ready."
He added: "What haunts me is the specter of Iraq 1991,"
when former President George Bush "urged the Shia to
rise up, and they did rise up, and tanks and planes
were coming at them ? and we were nowhere to be seen."
"Tens of thousands were slaughtered," Mr. Kerry said.
President Bill Clinton, he said, "missed the chance in
Rwanda, and said later it was the greatest regret of his
presidency, and then was too slow in Bosnia," where the
United States ended up using air power, also in the
defense of a Muslim population.
Administration officials make the case that the focus on
no-fly zones is overdone. "No-fly zones are more effective
against fighters, but they really have limited effect
against helicopters or the kinds of ground operations
we've seen" in Libya, Ivo Daalder, the American ambassador
to NATO, said Monday.
He added that "the overall air activity has not been the
deciding factor" in fights between rebels and the loyalists
and mercenaries surrounding Colonel Qaddafi.
It is possible that the mere talk of no-fly zones had some
effect. Pentagon and military officials confirmed that
sorties by aircraft loyal to the Qaddafi government had
dropped by half over the past three days. There was no
explanation for the change; it could have to do with
maintenance, or a decision to fly helicopters, which are
less provocative and harder to track.
The biggest voice of caution has been the most prominent
Republican in Mr. Obama's cabinet, Secretary of Defense
Robert M. Gates. It was Mr. Gates who laid out last week
the strongest case against intervention ? a case that
even some in the White House say privately they think may
have been overstated to make a point about how military
actions that look easy can quickly become complicated.
Mr. Gates forcefully warned Congress during budget testi-
mony that the first act in imposing a no-fly zone would
be an attack on Colonel Qaddafi's air defenses, and that
the step should only be taken if the United States was
ready for a prolonged military operation that could cover
all of Libya. He cautioned it might drain resources that
are already overstretched in Afghanistan and Iraq, because
Libya is such a large territory.
In interviews this week, even some military officials
called Mr. Gates's portrayal extreme. Executing a no-
fly zone would not require covering the whole country.
Most of the Libyan action would be along the coast, where
the major cities now held by rebels are. Even so, the
opening mission of imposing a no-fly zone would almost
certainly include missile attacks on air defense sites of
a sovereign nation, which some would indeed regard as an
act of war.
Tactical issues aside, Mr. Gates is concerned, Pentagon
officials say, about the political fallout of the United
States' attacking yet another Muslim country ? even on
behalf of a Muslim population. But he is cognizant of
the No. 1 lesson of Iraq: That once the United States
plays a major role in the ouster of a Middle Eastern
leader, it bears responsibility for whatever state emerges
in its place.
------------------------------------------------------------
Follow Your Favorite GopherCentral Publications on Twitter:
http://www.gophertweets.com/ More Coming Soon!
------------------------------------------------------------