Remarkably, the US is sending “clandestine” CIA teams into Libya to coordinate bombing runs and to provide contact with the rebels there at the same time that courts in Pakistan are still sorting out how Raymond Davis was allowed to leave the country after his blood money payment despite having been placed on the Exit Control List. Also, Washington is gearing up for a “debate” on drawing down US troops from Afghanistan this summer, with the military now angling to narrow the options to include only insignificant numbers to be withdrawn. Meanwhile, despite the best efforts of the remaining “non-combat” US troops there, violence in Iraq continues, with 56 killed in a single attack Wednesday.
In Pakistan, the Lahore High Court has given various government offices until April 8 to respond to a petition that has been filed with the court requesting information on how CIA operative Raymond Davis was allowed to leave the country despite having been placed on the Exit Control List:
The petition, filed by Barrister Javed Iqbal Jaffery, requested the court to seek explanation from Federal Law Minister Babar Awan, Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif, AD&SJ Mohammad Yousuf Aujla and others as to why they facilitated Davis in his acquittal and emergent departure despite the fact that his name was placed on the Exit Control List (ECL).
/snip/
The petitioner had stated that the LHC had directed the interior ministry to place Davis’s name on the ECL and the court was also assured by a law officer and the ministry that the order had been complied with.
He had further said that the court order was in place when Davis was released and the LHC had not suspended or withdrawn its order and no such application was filed by any one on behalf of Davis.
The petitioner had therefore alleged that the government and its functionaries released Davis ignoring the order of the LHC through which his name was placed on the ECL.
And yet, despite the ongoing fallout from the CIA’s continuing misadventures in Pakistan, Obama has signed a “finding” allowing CIA teams to enter Libya with assignments that appear to be very similar to Davis’ reported activities in developing targets for drone attacks:
The Central Intelligence Agency has inserted clandestine operatives into Libya to gather intelligence for military airstrikes and to contact and vet the beleaguered rebels battling Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces, according to American officials.
/snip/
In addition to the C.I.A. presence, composed of an unknown number of Americans who had worked at the spy agency’s station in Tripoli and others who arrived more recently, current and former British officials said that dozens of British special forces and MI6 intelligence officers are working inside Libya. The British operatives have been directing airstrikes from British jets and gathering intelligence about the whereabouts of Libyan government tank columns, artillery pieces and missile installations, the officials said.
/snip/
In addition, the American spies are meeting with rebels to try to fill in gaps in understanding who their leaders are and the allegiances of the groups opposed to Colonel Qaddafi, said United States government officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the activities. American officials cautioned, though, that the Western operatives were not directing the actions of rebel forces.
Given the track record of the US in these matters, you can bet that it is only a matter of time until our operatives are engaged not just in “directing the actions” of the the rebels but also actively engaged in the miraculous “training” that always is just on the verge of achieving success, but needs only another Friedman Unit or two to be completed. Of course, we probably also will need some drone strikes to “protect” the rebels and their trainers, too.
At the more mature end of the quagmire process that is beginning in Libya, we are about to move to the next phase in Afghanistan. The Washington Post reports Thursday morning on the upcoming battle over the extent of troop reductions this summer:
Military leaders and President Obama’s civilian advisers are girding for battle over the size and pace of the planned pullout of U.S. troops from Afghanistan this summer, with the military seeking to limit a reduction in combat forces and the White House pressing for a withdrawal substantial enough to placate a war-weary electorate.
Despite the fact that Obama is the Commander in Chief, Obama is following his usual negotiation strategy by allowing others to set the parameters of the debate:
Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top allied commander in Afghanistan, has not presented a recommendation on the withdrawal to his superiors at the Pentagon, but some senior officers and military planning documents have described the July pullout as small to insignificant, prompting deep concern within the White House.
/snip/
As both sides prepare for what they expect to be a vigorous debate, they are seeking ways to achieve their favored outcome by limiting what the other can do. For the military, that means crafting a narrow set of choices, because there is general agreement that reduction numbers need to originate in the field, not be imposed by the White House. But the National Security Council may attempt to impose its own limitations by setting a date by which all the surge forces must be brought home, the officials said.
And how is that going to work out? We only need go as far as Iraq to find out. The “drawdown” there was finalized by redefining the remaining troops as “non-combat”. And that is going just swimmingly:
Sunni militants linked to al-Qaeda were responsible for a bloody siege in Tikrit in which 56 people were killed, Iraqi officials have said.
Tuesday’s attack took place at a local government building in Tikrit, the hometown of Saddam Hussein.
A fierce gun-battle ended when the attackers – numbering about eight – blew themselves up.
Just how many quagmires do we have to be engaged in simultaneously for the military-industrial-congressional complex to be satisfied?




68 Comments

We debate debate debate while the powerful do what they were always planning to do.
“No boots on the ground”?? So we are now sending our troops into combat barefooted?
Pink bunny slippers.
I can’t comment here until I figure out why your ads are crashing my browser.
Following your script the Clintons got it right not doing ANYTHING to prevent the genocide of 800,000 Tutsi in Rwanda
There’s a distinct difference between an international, neutral force sent in to keep two sides from attacking one another and illegally, without involving Congress, taking a side in a civil war. A UN peacekeeping force would have been good in Rwanda and it would be good now in Libya.
What, you never heard of the “make it up in volume” theory?
Quicksand trap.
Letting the military set their own choices is like giving a hooker your debit card.
Yup. And that’s what I was getting at when I said Obama was entering the “negotiation” in his usual way of letting the other side set all the parameters in their favor. Kinda like taking single payer off the table before any meetings on healthcare…
Civilian control seems to be going the way of Congressional war powers, three independent branches of government, and the dodo.
Meanwhile the reporting continues to say that the rebel force has no more than about 1,000 fighters; seems like a pretty small group if this is supposed to be a popular uprising.
Ah well, I suppose the foreign freelance jihadis will increase that number.
Now, for my useless post… It seems to me that the only way for this to end is for the USA to financially collapse. Given that, not only do I want to see troops on the ground in Libya but I figure we will need one more war after that to do us in (just a guess). The international community isn’t going to stop us and the American people aren’t going to stop it but maybe a complete financial collapse will. I am fully confident that more lives will be saved in the long run if we flame out and are thus unable to attack someone every few years.
Will Colonel Kurtz be arriving anytime soon?
I used to be a union negotiator, I’d love to have had O to negotiate with.
If these trolls represent propaganda by ” Military intelligence” we are in bigger trouble than I ever imagined.
I think there are differences between Afghanistan and Libya.
In Afghanistan, the US committed itself to building a nation-state where there is none, and a national army where, again, there is none.
The US and Nato could make short work of Qaddafi’s military if it had a mind to (which I’m not convinced it does).
If those are the limited goals, the US should do it and get out sooner rather than later.
There is no need for Afghan-style nation building, and no need to set Libya in that context. Will the admin recognize that? Probably not.
Waaaay OT, but I’ve got a herd of 11 deer on my back yard!
“For the military, that means crafting a narrow set of choices, because there is general agreement that reduction numbers need to originate in the field, not be imposed by the White House.”
Imposed by the White House? Is the elected president the commander-in-chief of the armed forces or did we turn into a military dictatorship when I wasn’t looking?
You are right on that approach. But concerning Libya as in Rwanda, a denocratic administration did not do the right thing following your logic.
Ding! Ding! Ding!
I understand they make great sausage
I think we need to bring back vomitoriums. I want to puke all day every day over what has become of our country.
I still can’t help wondering if Raymond Davis is in Libya now.
Jim, before I vehemently disagree :) let me first and foremost thank you for all your great work on this story. FDL again kicks ass.
The problem with the above statemetn is that it assume Ghaddafi or the Rwandans would have allowed “peacekeepers” in the first place, and that opens on the larger question: What business of ours (the U.S.) is ANY of this?
The answer, of course, is that it wouldn’t be our business at all if business – commerce, capitalism – were not a consideration.
Revolts by oppressed populations are a fact of life and have been since time began. The fact that we – or the UN or anybody else – is going to determine how and when to become involved, THAT’S the issue here.
In disputes within a sovereign land, neither we, not the UN, nor anybody else has any business getting involved. Even when such disputes spill into a broader region, threatening neighboring countries, a strong case can be made that it is up to the affected countries to handle it.
It is a policy of non intervention of this very sort that the U.S. once practiced. We need to return to it.
The neoconservatives’ dream of going to war against every Muslim country in the Middle East is coming true!
How’s that hopie-changie stuff working out? Obama was the Republicans’ Manchurian candidate!
Don’t forget to mail it to Obama.
A friend who hunts on my property gives me venison in return. I love it. Roasted, BBQ, broil, sausage, chili, any way you fix it.
I love it that all these ‘CLANDESTINE’ missions are going on. This illustrates why Ben Franklin was right that 3 can keep a secret if 2 of them are dead.
The concept of secrets in government is just to increase panic, terror and crony-ism for political gains. Most of these missions will be claimed to be secrets months from now when the opposing forces, innocent civilians and thousands of soldiers, mercenaries and military contractors openly discuss this in the course of doing business. The government even claims secret status on video already broadcast throughout the world.
Basically, we are in a half a dozen expensive wars happily financed by debt while claiming poverty for homeless and abused children (among millions of other more worthy causes). NO SECRET AT ALL!
Raymond Davis! Probably writing his memoirs on an island in the Caribbeans
@ EvilDrPuma March 31st, 2011 at 8:41 am
You’re a brave feline/hominid/whatever
Any mention of the word “bunny” whether or not you employ a qualifier such as “pink”, “fluffy”, or “little” is very dangerous in these parts :-)
markfromireland
You have no idea what’s going on in secret. Some secrets are more secret than others. So there’s plenty of shit happening that you have no idea about, and may not even come out in your lifetime.
Black is white, up is down, freedom is slavery.
I may be pretty naive, but will the War Powers Act be invoked at any point? Will members of both houses of Congress debate and vote on some kind of binding resolution to support–or stop–this military action in Libya?
Is the War Powers Act (which may or may not be constitutional in itself) “quaint” and already relegated to the dust bin of history? Can it be ignored?
Not naive at all. Those are the relevant questions of the day. And if the War Powers Act is dead, the next Republican president can bomb Iran without fear of Congressional interference.
I didn’t know deer could cook! ;-)
Jim,
The United States of America, it’s government, but above all its people are a very warlike bunch. If you look at American history you’ve been at war far more often than not.
There’s an appallingly high warmonger quotient amongst FDL’s denizens come to that.
(And before anyone responds to that last point I invite you to reflect upon the fact that given my profession nobody could describe me as being even remotely sympathetic to pacifism or pacifists).
markfromireland
There are also now on the ground reports that the “rebels” Obama is supporting are raping and murdering in cold blood African migrant workers. They are easily identified because they are black.
Not a peep out of Zero or Hillary on the real genocide they are supporting in Libya.
I realize the government does do stuff they keep secret for some time, but calling widely reported facts, secret, clandestine or other words to that effect is crazy. Punishing people for further discussion of widely distributed information is even crazier.
Finally, military missions involving blowing up stuff and killing lots of people ceases to be a secret the instant it happens. The use of secrecy after the cruise missile lands as a dud or a big explosion is pretty much the opposite of a secret.
The list of nations and organizations that can launch missile strkes is very short.
How about the idea… that the purpose is to render the usofa broke, so what ever is left of the economy makes it easy for the corporations to do a take over of everything.
Like those take overs and that “mergermania,” but on the scale of whole continent/ country. So I don’t know nuthin, probably an unwitting ( troll by proxy), but that seems like to me an explanation of why they are running things down.
“Bring it all down man” [ Constructive destruction ] that’s what they do to acquisition targets, take em apart, destroy the company, pick the brains or destroy careers, fire personel, coopt their market share, sell off the capital, it’s all good.
It’s just privatization moved up a notch.
@ Jim White March 31st, 2011 at 8:53 am
Emphasis added.
No it wouldn’t. Speaking as a professional military officer who has spent somewhat more than a quarter century as a peace keeper in the Middle East. I can’t think of a worse idea.
What’s going on in Libya is a tribal civil war all that any outside intervention will do is prolong it.
As a general point:
The history of peacekeeping in the Middle East isn’t particularly good there are lots of reasons for that the most important of them being that the UN is part and parcel of the neo-imperialist establishment.
It is no accident that the very first western target subjected to a major bombing in post-invasion Irak was the UN mission. Irakis (rightly) placed a lot of the blame for 500,000 dead children who died as a result of sanctions bang smack where it belonged on the UN’s shoulders.
Then there’s the little problem of the ROE. Unless the peacekeeeping force have an ROE that allows them to intervene vigorously (and yes that means killing people when necessary) a peacekeeping force is shag all use.
markfromireland
Thanks. That’s my outsider’s impression.
I seen some rewriting of Rwanda, i.e., that they blue helmuts should have ignored the ROE and stopped the massacre with force.
Would you care to weigh in on that?
In 1998 he wrote:
The War Powers Resolution: Time to Say Goodbye [pdf]; Louis Fisher, David Gray Adler; Political Science Quarterly; 1998
Late in the Bush Administration, there was an attempt to rescind the War Powers Act, and replace it with a “War Powers Consultation Act” about which Fisher wrote the following:
The Baker-Christopher War Powers Commission [pdf]; Louis Fisher; 3/09
Here’s a link [pdf] to the library at The Constitution Center, where Fisher is Scholar in Residence.
“Just how many quagmires do we have to be engaged in simultaneously for the military-industrial-congressional complex to be satisfied?”
No limits. They’ll putrefy every corner of the planet.
Do you use the add on “Ad Block Plus”. That stops all ads or it least it did with the 3 series of Firefox. :)
Thank you sir for your service to our country,
So, then counter to the notion that the UN peace keepers are a solution: that they are not the nonjudgemental, neutral, humanitarian, agents they pretend:
“… being that the UN is part and parcel of the neo-imperialist establishment.”
That’s not the first time I thought of that, no we used to chew the fat on stuff at work, and that would have been a common enough sympathy when the conversation got around to the real. That the big powers are in back of things, always.
So, the clincher would be: Only the American tax payers believe in these fantastic dog an pony shows, the sand…. folks on the recieving end, they know better.
Americans are kept in the dark, it’s a mushroom farm.
That’s in reply to MarkfromIreland
Yeah, I suspect that the folks we are supporting are far worse than Gaddafi. A bunch of tribal reactionaries and fundamentalists.
@ eCAHNomics March 31st, 2011 at 10:03 am
That’s how you stop massacres. That’s what they should have done. (Same applies to the outright cowardice of the Dutch peacekeepers in Srebenica before you ask. They don’t have as much blood on their hands as the people who actually carried out the massacre but as those peoples’ enablers they’ve got a hell of a lot of blood on their hands nevertheless).
One of the things I’m very proud of about the Irish contingent both in Lebanon and on the Iran-Irak border is that we showed we weren’t afraid to push back hard and that despite taking casualties we were going to keep the peace. Which we did.
markfromireland
@ geoshmoe March 31st, 2011 at 10:25 am
Never served in the American forces although I can see why you made that assumption. Irish Army :-)
markfromireland
Thanks again.
Yup, that’s at least part of it.
To be fair, single payer came off the table after meetings on healthcare…
With the hospital lobby.
@ geoshmoe March 31st, 2011 at 10:25 am
To answer your substantive points. Yes UN peacekeepers are now I regret to say far more likely to be part of the problem. It used not to be that way, the UN used not to be wholly coopted but it is now.
As to the sandwordthatwedarenotuse well if you go to the site that I and some Iraki colleagues founded
you’ll see we have this as our tagline:
We’re quoting an American General giving his opinion to the then military correspondent for the New York Times.
The sand n*****s know exactly whose doing it to them – and why.
markfromireland
But we started out in Afghanistan to clean out the Taliban.
You can already see the mission creep in Libya.
Amen!
“But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.
She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.
She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.”
http://millercenter.org/scripps/archive/speeches/detail/3484
@ eCAHNomics March 31st, 2011 at 10:34 am
NP :-)
Want to know why we didn’t intervene? Hutu militia groups didn’t need our help, they met their quota all on their own. And as an added bonus, that event provided the genocidal interventionists with an argument they could push in the media.
Kucinich just assailed Obama’s Libya war as unconstitutional.
Kucinich assails Obama’s ‘Libyan war’ as unconstitutional:
I wonder who’s been giving Obama his legal advice.
Look at what else Kucinich said:
The uprising in Libya began on Feb. 15. Not much more than a month ago.
I don’t doubt it but can he prove it? I think the President has gone off the rails on this one but that doesn’t mean he won’t get away with it.
I agree if you truly mean “prevent”.
But that word means things like Obama using personal diplomacy (i.e. visiting Qaddafi), forcing the rebels to stand down as well as the Libyan Government, caring about the people of Benghazi etc. last year, getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan, helping Julian Assange spread truth rather than getting Sweden to use a honey trap against him torturing Bradley Manning, forcing Israel to give up hopes for “Greater Israel”, closing Guantanamo, having an Apollo Program for alternative energy, not letting American inflation starve people in the third world, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
I’m wagering you didn’t mean “prevent”, but actually meant “bomb the shit out of”.
No?
You made me laugh!
“How’s that hopie-changie stuff working out”
Palin was right about that one.
That, and her labeling of the “lamestream media” (although for all the wrong reasons).
So which smaller, uncooperative country with resources has the admin lined up next to sprinkle with our depleted uranium freedom dust?
UN peacekeeping forces are only as good as the backing they receive from the world, the quality of their oversight committees, and their rules of engagement, as Rwanda, DRC, Darfur, and now Côte D’Ivoire can demonstrate amply. The world must keep them front and center, not leave scared third world troops with blue helmets to be forgotten like in Congo, there must be rules of engagement that allow them to do their job, so they don’t just sit there slowly dying of PTSD like the AU troops in Darfur, or powerless like Dallaire in Rwanda or the troops in Côte D’Ivoire in early March, and the committees must do the political job to back them up, instead of what went wrong in Côte D’Ivoire in February.
They have different problems, but they can be just as much a screw up as sending in NATO. Or they can be the right thing to do. But if the world is going to do R2P, then all three parts are going to have to get done, Prevent, React, and Redevelop, and that first one, for the US, starts at home.
More than anything, we need to demote and prosecute, so we can get rid of the supremacy of the clandestine culture. We aren’t going to solve anything ever again with sooooo many secrets. All that happens is more screw ups the more the intelligence people are running the place. The veil of secrecy screws us and screws the Security Council and screws the world every time in shorter and shorter time increments. But it isn’t going to be dethroned until we start sending our major screwups to jail and firing people whose policy recommendations are wrong.
I’v had the same problem for about two, two and a half months while using firefox. And I constantly upgraded the updates.
I finally got so fed up I switched to Opera. Smooth sailing ever since
I use chrome excellent browser!