McCain pushes heavier U.S. involvement in Libya

samusaran253

Benghazi, Libya (CNN) -- Libyan opposition leaders received a major morale boost Friday as a top U.S. senator made a surprise visit to the rebel stronghold of Benghazi and urged greater American involvement in the bloody campaign to oust longtime strongman Moammar Gadhafi.

The visit from Arizona Sen. John McCain came a day after the United States said it was deploying predator drones to Libya.

McCain said the drones would increase NATO's capability in the war-torn North African country, but not enough to make up a shortfall in assets needed to break a "significant degree of stalemate."

He said he was against U.S. troops on the ground -- echoing Obama administration policy -- but argued that Western powers need to do more to "facilitate" the delivery of weapons and training for the rebels.

"We have prevented the worst outcome in Libya," McCain told reporters. "Now we need to increase our support so that the Libyan people can achieve the only satisfactory outcome to this mass protest for universal rights -- the end of Gadhafi's rule and the beginning of a peaceful and inclusive transition to democracy that will benefit all Libyans."

McCain, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, is a former presidential nominee and decorated Navy veteran. The five-term senator is considered a senior congressional spokesman on military and foreign policy matters.

McCain is the highest-ranking U.S. official to visit Libya since the conflict erupted in February. During his visit, he challenged critics of NATO's intervention to tour Benghazi and see a "powerful and hopeful example of what a free Libya can be."

The senator was greeted by a crowd of roughly 100 Libyans waving American flags.

"Thank you John McCain! Thank you Obama," people chanted. "Thank you America! We need freedom! Gadhafi go away!"

McCain visited Benghazi's Freedom Square, accompanied by, among others, Abdul Hafiz Ghoga, deputy chairman of the opposition Transitional National Council. He paused at a courthouse wall covered with scores of pictures of people allegedly killed by Gadhafi's forces and others who have gone missing since uprisings began.

"The American people support you very strongly, and we know it's necessary to help as much as we can," McCain told a woman who thanked him for U.S. support.

As McCain met with the rebels, miles away in western Libya, a fierce battle continued to rage for control of Misrata, the country's third largest city. Misrata has been under siege for seven weeks by Gadhafi loyalists.

"Let's face it. This is not a fair fight," McCain asserted. "Maybe we should be doing everything we can to help these people and maybe we're not, and they're dying."

While McCain insisted he would not have gone to Libya without the backing of the White House, a top Middle East analyst told CNN the senator's trip would increase the pressure on President Barack Obama to step up U.S. involvement.

McCain "brings more limelight to the rebels," said Michael Rubin, a Middle East scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative Washington think tank. "His visit forces some American officials to reconsider their assessment of the rebels."

"The fact that McCain was able to conduct this meeting shows a modicum of organization (among the rebels) and also raises the question: if McCain can meet the people for whom we are fighting, why not Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Why not Vice President Joe Biden?"

If McCain returns to Capitol Hill and demands formal recognition of the rebel government as the legitimate representative of the Libyan people, it is certain to shift the debate on U.S. diplomatic posture, Rubin said.

If all opponents of the intervention "have done is sit back comfortably in Washington, it will be harder for them to drum up moral authority to back their arguments," he noted.

Asked by CNN to define the U.S. end game in Libya, McCain said he envisions "a departure of Moammar Gadhafi and the Libyan people being able to set up a government by themselves, with the assistance primarily of the Europeans but also the United States of America."

"Libya is much closer to Europe, and Europeans have greater ties to Libya and greater interests," McCain noted.

The United Nations has sanctioned military action only to protect civilians. Both American and European leaders, however, have repeatedly stated that their political goal is the ouster of Gadhafi.

What would the Gadhafi's departure mean?

"It means one of three things," McCain said. "He joins Hugo Chavez in Venezuela or he goes to International Criminal Court, which is my preference, or he joins Hitler and Stalin."

The senator noted that rebel leaders have insisted Gadhafi step down from power, significantly reducing the chances for a political settlement.

When Gadhafi's forces were outside Benghazi, the dictator said he "was going to go house to house and kill every person that he could," McCain added. "There is no doubt what Col. Gadhafi will do to his own people if he has the opportunity. ... That's not a settlement. That's a massacre."

McCain defended the track record of predator drones in Pakistan and Afghanistan, arguing that their use has only resulted in civilian deaths when targets have been misidentified.

Contacted by CNN, McCain's office declined to state how the senator's surprise trip was funded.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/04/22/mccain.libya/index.html

[MOD EDIT NOTE: The OP has been advised not to start threads without discussion; i.e., simply reproducing a news report without discussion is not appropriate per charter. Several such threads opened by the OP have been closed in US Politics accordingly.]

Manic Moran

I'm all for it. This dicking around is ridiculous.

Either it's our business to get involved or it's not. Since the government, in its infinite wisdom, has decided that we're going to get involved, then do it right and get it over with.

NTM

AlekSmart

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm all for it. This dicking around is ridiculous.

Either it's our business to get involved or it's not. Since the government, in its infinite wisdom, has decided that we're going to get involved, then do it right and get it over with.

NTM

+1 on that MM.

This is SO reminiscent of SO many Western interventions where Military Assets are deployed and then some form of policy devised as the situation on the ground develops.

What we now see in Libya is a scenario whereby young UN service personnel will lose their lives with only the vaguest notion of what their function and goals in the country are.

The hoo-hah over the US Presidents sanction of TWO Predator RPV`s to deploy to the theatre did'nt fill me with any great confidence that that Adminstration sees Libya as a significant situation to be dealt with in a significant manner.

One reason for the UN's reticitence may well be the fact that if their chosen task is to be accomplished the UN Military Forces may well have to become somewhat more Gadaffi'ish in their approach.....what a pickle that would be eh..?

nacho libre

He's changed his tune since August 2009, at that time he was praising Gadaffi as a peacemaker. I wonder will some of these heroes, as he sees them, become enemies in the future? Given the history of blowback, it's quite likely.

OS119

nacho libre wrote: »

He's changed his tune since August 2009, at that time he was praising Gadaffi as a peacemaker. I wonder will some of these heroes, as he sees them, become enemies in the future? Given the history of blowback, it's quite likely.

times change, interests change - even if Gaddafi's regime had fallen the first time a NATO fast jet had done a sonic boom over Tripoli and all of libya was filled with milk and honey, its quite likely that at some stage, their interests would have conflicted with ours.

now their situation is much more desperate, NATO hasn't done what they may have thought NATO would do, overthrowing a despotic regime has proved rather harder than they thought it was going to, and they have probably had to do deals with people they wouldn't have chosen to do deals with 8 weeks ago in order to survive, its quite likely that when this eventually resolves itself out they will be less friendly towards the west than they might otherwise have been.

meh - the UK has fought wars against the US, the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, France, Spain and a dozen other countries in the recent(ish) past, yet we have serious defence pacts with all of them. yet in 100 years the UK may not exist, or it may have been to war with France or the US.

times change, and we must change with the times.

Denerick

What is he suggesting? A ground force invasion?

Anyone else thinking that he is trying to get Obama to launch an unpopular war, just in time for the 2012 election?

Frankly I still wouldn't rule McCain out of a vainglorious bid for the Presidency.

Manic Moran

Denerick wrote: »

What is he suggesting? A ground force invasion?

It would be faster, more effective, would probably save more 'friendly' lives, and may well be cheaper.

NTM

Denerick

Manic Moran wrote: »

It would be faster, more effective, would probably save more 'friendly' lives, and may well be cheaper.

NTM

Then what? Occupation? What do the Americans do when some Libyan extremists inevitably start setting off bombs in marketplaces and hospitals?

OS119

Denerick wrote: »

Then what? Occupation? What do the Americans do when some Libyan extremists inevitably start setting off bombs in marketplaces and hospitals?

get stuck.

thats the reason i'm not wildly keen on a large scale ground engagement, i think we'll get lumbered with the place.

personally i have no problem with JTAC/FAC's and liason teams, arming and mentoring, co-ordination and a much heavier air presence, but i think the risk of being left holding the baby if we were to deploy large ground force contingents is too high. a liberal, democratic(ish) Libya where the population are safe and secure is a nice to have, and worth going to some lengths and taking some risks for, but its not sufficiently critical to european security to take the risks that finding ourselves responsible for rebuilding it - ala Iraq - would entail if NATO/EU committed serious ground forces.

Manic Moran

Denerick wrote: »

Then what? Occupation?

Not at all.

The current objective is to destroy units which are threatening the enclaves like Misrata. We are currently doing that by the use of expensive to run aircraft, firing missiles which cost between tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars each, and fairly slowly because of the length of time it takes to identify these things from a cockpit.

The same job, which does not require occupation, can be done by a ground force far more efficiently. Land a tank company, a couple of recon units, and a mech infantry company on the shore outside Misrata at 2000. They drive around the outskirts of Misrata for about ten miles inland, destroy whatever they find which is pointing its cannon at the city. Turn around, drive ten miles back to the beach, get back on the ship by 0600.

This does nothing but the exact same job that the current airstrikes are doing except using ammo which is about $2,000 a round and allows many more eyes to be searching in greater detail. A single F-15 carries, what, 6 missiles? Verses '40 stowed kills' per tank?

NTM

Denerick

Sounds nice in principle, but I can see it breaking about 1000 international rules, and shouldn't congress mandate such ground force operations?

Manic Moran

Denerick wrote: »

Sounds nice in principle, but I can see it breaking about 1000 international rules, and shouldn't congress mandate such ground force operations?

Name one. The current security council resolution only prohibits occupation. A raid such as this would be authorized under the current situation.

There is no separate standard for air or ground operations where Congress is concerned.

NTM

Denerick

Manic Moran wrote: »

Name one. The current security council resolution only prohibits occupation. A raid such as this would be authorized under the current situation.

There is no separate standard for air or ground operations where Congress is concerned.

NTM

When does a raid become an invasion?

I'm sure the Pentagon has devised various scenarios for such an eventuality.

Manic Moran

Denerick wrote: »

When does a raid become an invasion?

As soon as the first ship, airplane or soldier enters the other nation's territory. If you've not noticed, NATO has been invading Libya for the last month or so, they've just not done it on the ground yet.

NTM

OS119

Denerick wrote: »

When does a raid become an invasion?

going to disagree with MM - though he may be technically, legally correct: an invasion is an invasion when people call it an invasion - otherwise its an incursion, or a raid, or a stabilisation operation, or 'hot pursuit' or any of a hundred other terms that don't have the baggage of 'invasion' and sound rather less wide-ranging and rather more short-term.

indeed the Cambridge University Dictionary has four definitions of the word 'invade' - three of them imply permanance and ownership. if there is no interests in permanance, and no interest is a change of ownership, then it would be easy to make a good, pedantic, legalistic case than in MM's scenario, no 'invasion' had taken place...

IMV, this is a political issue, not a legal or technical issue - and politics is more, err... accommodating than the Law. Gaddafi has no friends who will protest on his behalf, everyone wants this problem to go away, so if NATO were to come up with a plausable narrative for such an operation nobody would give a sh1t.

Manic Moran

OS119 wrote: »

IMV, this is a political issue, not a legal or technical issue - and politics is more, err... accommodating than the Law. Gaddafi has no friends who will protest on his behalf, everyone wants this problem to go away, so if NATO were to come up with a plausable narrative for such an operation nobody would give a sh1t.

I think you have that backwards. The politics are the one reason why this hasn't been done already. We've agreed that there are no legal or technical barriers.

NTM

jank

I agree they should get it over and done with but an invasion would look terrible in the Muslim world when in other countries US backed regimes continue to kill protesters....

Anyway, they made their bed they should lie in it now.

nacho libre

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8472816/WikiLeaks-Guantanamo-detainee-is-now-Libyan-rebel-leader.html

one of McCain's Heroes

nacho libre

OS119 wrote: »

times change, interests change - even if Gaddafi's regime had fallen the first time a NATO fast jet had done a sonic boom over Tripoli and all of libya was filled with milk and honey, its quite likely that at some stage, their interests would have conflicted with ours.

now their situation is much more desperate, NATO hasn't done what they may have thought NATO would do, overthrowing a despotic regime has proved rather harder than they thought it was going to, and they have probably had to do deals with people they wouldn't have chosen to do deals with 8 weeks ago in order to survive, its quite likely that when this eventually resolves itself out they will be less friendly towards the west than they might otherwise have been.

times change, and we must change with the times.

ah yes, war is interests masquerading as principle. which means today's enemy can be tomorrow friend and vice versa.
yet it's surprising home some commentators then display moral indignation when the inevitable blowback occurs.

Jonny7

In '91 the US still had bad Vietnam syndrome, but the quick "efficient" war cleaned that up spades - this new found confidence turned to over-confidence by Bush/Rove/Rumsfeld/Cheney and has ended in a quagmire -

This backdrop has subsequently led to nonconfidence and a weak/late approach to Libya - however will remain eternally surprised that action even took place at all - and in Ivory coast too

For godsake they could cream Gaddafi and most of his mercs/army in about 1 or 2 weeks but are absolutely terrified of civilian casualties (of which there have been genuinely few for once)

Its definitely at a tipping point right now, one strong decisive push is needed

However boots on the ground? ridiculous, won't happen. Officers advising rebels, and some special forces ops is about the max.

Jonny7

nacho libre wrote: »

ah yes, war is interests masquerading as principle. which means today's enemy can be tomorrow friend and vice versa.
yet it's surprising home some commentators then display moral indignation when the inevitable blowback occurs.

Strange, those 'outraged' by this violation of principles only appear on issues relating to US/UK/Israel

Yet when it comes to Russia, India, China, Africa - strangely silent -

until...

a point where the US/UK/Israel gets involved, then along comes the 'outrage'

Its a very strange selective view on war if you ask me. One i definitely garnered myself from '01 onwards

nacho libre

Jonny7 wrote: »

Strange, those 'outraged' by this violation of principles only appear on issues relating to US/UK/Israel

Yet when it comes to Russia, India, China, Africa - strangely silent -

until...

a point where the US/UK/Israel gets involved, then along comes the 'outrage'

Its a very strange selective view on war if you ask me. One i definitely garnered myself from '01 onwards

you seem to have forgotten the condemantion of Russia a few years ago for invading Georgia. Also the threads about Darfur and Indonesia in the politics forum. Perhaps a better criticism would be that threads about the US/Israel are more popular on boards.

a selective view of war is not really strange at all, when things are viewed through a sphere, by competing powers, of what's good for us, is bad for them.


with this in mind, as you point out , rather than holding everyone to account for their own actions, some firmly come down one on side/engage in selective condemnation, with the rational of it's better the devil you know. this enables them to minimize, and if needs be, contextualise the crimes their side commits, on the basis that the other side is far, far worse. if only this could work at individual level. i'm sure a male criminal would love to be able employ this strategy in court in mitigation against his crimes. your honour, I only raped a woman. while that man, over there, raped and killed a woman.

Manic Moran

you seem to have forgotten the condemantion of Russia a few years ago for invading Georgia

There was?

I thought the general consensus was that the Georgians had it coming.

You don't go up to a bear and tweak its nose. It's liable to provoke a response.

NTM

Jonny7

nacho libre wrote: »

you seem to have forgotten the condemantion of Russia a few years ago for invading Georgia. Also the threads about Darfur and Indonesia in the politics forum. Perhaps a better criticism would be that threads about the US/Israel are more popular on boards.

a selective view of war is not really strange at all, when things are viewed through a sphere, by competing powers, of what's good for us, is bad for them.


with this in mind, as you point out , rather than holding everyone to account for their own actions, some firmly come down one on side/engage in selective condemnation, with the rational of it's better the devil you know. this enables them to minimize, and if needs be, contextualise the crimes their side commits, on the basis that the other side is far, far worse. if only this could work at individual level. i'm sure a male criminal would love to be able employ this strategy in court in mitigation against his crimes. your honour, I only raped a woman. while that man, over there, raped and killed a woman.

I am generally agreeing

Oh for the love of god, in work, wrote big thread, then it disappears

anyway

to be quick -

There will always be those more 'shocked' and 'outraged' by 'Western hypocrisy' than a tragic and blatent wholesale slaughter of civilians. This is sadly a flawed way of thinking.

Sidetaking and indoctrination takes a part in this

I see a pretty single crisp uncluttered consensus on Kim Il Yong, he and his family grow fat on imported lobster and caviar while his people starve, as one very interested in history and military history, this isn't unique either - I have confidence that we aren't indoctrinated enough so that we can, in general, make a solid common sense call on that situation.

Syria - no thread yet, again, from a fundamental level, without overcomplicating - a leadership which wants to stay in power at very high cost - selfish values over the wishes of its people. I don't need a phsycoanalysis of how humans perceive good and bad just to call that one out.

Yet if there was Western intervention - then we will have those suddenly questioning if Assad in Syria is really that bad, if the reports we so readily believed before Western intervention are suddenly thrown into question, if the protestors are perhaps linked to Al Qaeda, etc, etc.

aka US/UK/Israel gets involved - in comes the rubbish

nacho libre

Jonny7 wrote: »

I am generally agreeing

Oh for the love of god, in work, wrote big thread, then it disappears

anyway

to be quick -

There will always be those more 'shocked' and 'outraged' by 'Western hypocrisy' than a tragic and blatent wholesale slaughter of civilians. This is sadly a flawed way of thinking.

Sidetaking and indoctrination takes a part in this

I see a pretty single crisp uncluttered consensus on Kim Il Yong, he and his family grow fat on imported lobster and caviar while his people starve, as one very interested in history and military history, this isn't unique either - I have confidence that we aren't indoctrinated enough so that we can, in general, make a solid common sense call on that situation.

Syria - no thread yet, again, from a fundamental level, without overcomplicating - a leadership which wants to stay in power at very high cost - selfish values over the wishes of its people. I don't need a phsycoanalysis of how humans perceive good and bad just to call that one out.

Yet if there was Western intervention - then we will have those suddenly questioning if Assad in Syria is really that bad, if the reports we so readily believed before Western intervention are suddenly thrown into question, if the protestors are perhaps linked to Al Qaeda, etc, etc.

aka US/UK/Israel gets involved - in comes the rubbish

the cynicism possibly comes in because they are aware America has been involved in many unsavoury incidents over the years

sure you'll say even a serial gambler doesn't always lie, but it is understandable you would be at least somewhat skeptical of anything they have to say.




where we agree, is that the outrage meter seems to have a higher reading when it comes to Israel and American transgressions.