Are we already doing it?
Reuters is reporting that President Obama signed a secret “finding,” as far back as two to three weeks ago, authorizing covert support of the Libyan rebels — including, potentially, cash and weapons.
The president told Diane Sawyer yesterday that it was “fair to say that if we wanted to get weapons into Libya, we probably could,” and that the administration was “looking at all our options.”
Separately, the New York Times is reporting today that there is a “fierce debate” involving the White House, the Pentagon, and Foggy Bottom on the wisdom of arming the rebels.
The debate has “prompted an urgent call for intelligence” about the rebels, amid fears that the agglomeration of anti-Qaddafi forces contains a substantial number of al-Qaeda and other terrorist sympathizers. SecState –
who met for a second time with a senior opposition leader, Mahmoud Jibril — acknowledged that as a group, the rebels were largely a mystery. “We don’t know as much as we would like to know and as much as we expect we will know,” she said at a news conference.
The French, apparently, feel most strongly about the issue:
A European diplomat said France was adamant that the rebels be more heavily armed and was in discussions with the Obama administration about how France would bring this about. “We strongly believe that it should happen,” said the diplomat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.
But the administration and its allies in Congress appear, for the time being to be exercising caution:
Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat and chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said he had had conversations with two senior administration officials about this issue. Mr. Levin said he was most concerned about how the rebels would use the weapons after a cease-fire. “Would they stop fighting if they had momentum, or would they be continuing to use those weapons?” he asked.
Gene A. Cretz, the American ambassador to Libya, said last week that he was impressed by the democratic instincts of the opposition leaders and that he did not believe that they were dominated by extremists. But he acknowledged that there was no way to know if they were “100 percent kosher, so to speak.”
Bruce O. Riedel, a former C.I.A. analyst and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said some who had fought as insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan were bound to have returned home to Libya. “The question we can’t answer is, Are they 2 percent of the opposition? Are they 20 percent? Or are they 80 percent?” he said.
I was joking with Rich the other day that what the Defense Department needs is a program to develop basic infantry weapons — rifles, man-portable anti-aircraft weapons, and anti-armor weapons — that are disposable. That is, that break down and become non-functional along a fairly short timeline: six months or a year. Better yet, we need weapons with a remote on/off button that the president can deactivate at his discretion. Better yet, we need “smart” weapons linked up to transponders embedded in each American serviceman’s uniform such that they won’t fire if an American soldier is down-barrel.
Get DARPA on that and I’d consider supporting the arming of the Libyan rebels.
UPDATE: Now the Times is saying there are in fact CIA operatives on the ground — along with British special forces and MI6 — coordinating with the rebels:
WASHINGTON — The Central Intelligence Agency has inserted clandestine operatives into Libya to gather intelligence for military airstrikes and make contacts with rebels battling Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces, according to American officials.
While President Obama has insisted that no American ground troops join in the Libyan campaign, small groups of C.I.A. operatives have been working in Libya for several weeks and are part of a shadow force of Westerners that the Obama administration hopes can help set back Colonel Qaddafi’s military, the officials said.
The C.I.A. presence comprises an unknown number of American officers who had worked at the spy agency’s station in Tripoli and those who arrived more recently. In addition, current and former British officials said, dozens of British special forces and MI6 intelligence officers are working inside Libya. The British operatives have been directing airstrikes from British Tornado jets and gathering intelligence about the whereabouts of Libyan government tank columns, artillery pieces, and missile installations, the officials said.
Someone's been reading Old Man's War...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy in the world would anyone be surprised we have been supporting the Libyan insurgents covertly? I would say we had troops in-country at least from the day before the first aircraft dropped the first laser guided bomb. Who do you think targeted the weapon?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo Obama arms the Libyan rebels, who are rumored to have Al Qaeda connections. How long until those weapons are "transferred" out of theater and used against Americans in Afghanistan or even worse, in the US?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Foster,
Programs like this have been funded and developed by countless defense contractors countless times. It's not even a DARPA program, because it isn't a "research" problem at all, just an engineering one. NATO has been working on all sorts of network-firing weapons for over a decade, and has working groups devoted to the systems engineering needed to make it happen.
The problem is that in the end, the weapons procurement and munitions folks don't like "smart" weapons, and despite all attempts to build them, they will not purchase them. Explaining why is too inside baseball for this comment, but the short answer is that they don't trust it will work, but that's never stopped them from spending federal money having people develop them only to have their ideas abandoned.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe last bit there sounded like an invitation to snark about the reliability of our own rifles.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe will arm them. And those weapons will be used to kill Americans. And our government knows this and does not care.
The reality now is that Obama needs to take out Qaddafi in order to achieve the least-dreadful outcome of this bungled war with no possible good outcomes. The Islamist rebels appear to be the Keystone Cops, and they certainly aren't won't get the job done without arms supplies, training and assistance from US special forces on the ground. The alternative is to send in the Marines to take Tripoli, and even Obama isn't that stupid.
So we're going to hand over deadly weapons to people who hate us, and hope for the best even though we know exactly how this story will play out.
And to think that in some circles it's the non-interventionists who are denounced as "extreme" and "unpatriotic." This whole war is an impeachable offense -- at least on the right side of the spectrum it should help discredit John McCain, The Weekly Standard crowd and other fanatics who cheered on this disgrace.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is a good follow-up to the bogus story in the British press about the 6 SAS plus 2 diplomats that were sent into Libya to negotiate with the rebels, and were then captured, to the considerable embarrassment of the British.
That clearly was a fake story planted by the UK government.
Clearly that team screwed up somehow, but it wasn't a diplomatic team, it was a special forces team sent into to collect intelligence or direct the bombing, etc.
But the UK Foreign Minister pretended it was his fault, as was his duty.
Perhaps the UK media knew it was a fake story too, and published it to cover-up the special forces mission.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm with krauthammer on this. If you are going to take Vienna, then take Vienna. This is the most mucked up military operation of my lifetime. The cutesy posing of this administration is either a bunch of lies or they really have no idea what they are doing or who is doing what when or saying what when. It is a mass of contradiction from the get go. You just don't run war that way. I said it before: Obama comes across as a weak man. Weak men have a way of getting into wars to prove that they are not weak and then conduct war badly, or weakly, you might say. So, a policy that says Gadaffi has to go is at least a debate. But Obama has no idea what he is doing and then does stuff on the sly that contradicts in an incoherent way his previous incoherence. So, when rebels start doing what rebels do and kill Gadaffi followers in a civil war or take revenge, we do....what?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is just nuts.
Their big problem is that the stated motivation for the attack is a lie, just like with Iraq. The motivation for our attack is not humanitarian it's regime change (just as Iraq was about regime change and not WMD), and it becomes increasingly hard to justify our actions now that the loyalists are no longer barreling down on Benghazi.
>>We will arm them. And those weapons will be used to kill Americans. And our government knows this and does not care.
Absolutely. Look at operation fast and furious where our government is handing out guns to Mexican drug runners that are then used to gun down a US border patrol agent. They do not care.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseViolence never solved anything.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYeah, because the sanctions and "diplomatic options"have worked tremendously well in getting qaddafi out of power....
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSeems like it was only yesterday when people at NRO were singing the praise of the Sons of Iraq, while it was the Left that insisted they would inevitably stab us in the back...
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Better yet, we need weapons with a remote on/off button that the president can deactivate at his discretion. Better yet, we need “smart” weapons linked up to transponders embedded in each American serviceman’s uniform such that they won’t fire if an American soldier is down-barrel."
Better yet, we need to stop funding and supporting groups that we don't understand for reasons that are morally ambiguous at best. Better yet, we need to stop asking our brave young men to put their lives on the line for pointless interventions in faraway lands.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo, no, you don't understand.
Only one plan yields the greatest degree of control, political stability and oil supply, with the lowest cost.
Help whichever side is losing until they're all dead.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse