Kadafi victory or stalemate likely in Libya, a top U.S. official says

[bemildred]

Source: LAT

WASHINGTON — Libyan leader Moammar Kadafi is unlikely to be ousted by rebels, the top U.S. intelligence officer has told a congressional committee, and the United States must contemplate the national-security implications of a Kadafi victory — or even a stalemate.

Libya could end up split into two or three parts, James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, said Thursday, or "you could end up with a Somalia-like situation."

Because of its superior weapons and logistical capabilities, "I think over time, over the longer term, that the regime will prevail," Clapper said at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. Kadafi has units, equipped with tanks and artillery, that have the ability to maintain and replenish their weapons over time, Clapper said.

Gen. Ronald Burgess, head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, was more equivocal: "Initially the momentum was with the other side — that has started to shift," he said. "Whether or not it has fully moved to Kadafi's side is not clear at this time, but we have now reached a state of equilibrium."

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/sc-dc-0311-us-libya-20110310,0,3283618.story

[pinboy3niner]

1. UPDATE: White House dials back on General's statement

From AJE Libya Live Blog March 10:

10:46pm < (3:46 PM EST) >

The White House is reportedly trying to scale back retired Lt Gen Clapper's statement, saying he had given a "static assessment" of the situation as it stood today.

But if you look at it through a "dynamic lens", taking into account motivation, isolation, Gaddafi's loss of legitimacy... You can come up with a different assessment,

said President Obama's National Security Advisor Tom Donilon.

Asked if the US administration was content with the intelligence director giving Congress "a static assessment", he replied:

The president is happy with Director Clapper.

http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/libya-live-blog-march-10-0

[David__77]

2. The people have the power.

The people do have the power to defeat any enemy. Popular warfare can mobilize people to be incredibly ingenious, as was shown, for instance, in Vietnam or in China before that. The partisan struggle against European fascism is another such example. Even a people armed with slingshots and dynamite can be a powerful military force.

[abqmufc]

3. Agreed but,

I fear a failed internal led revolution will "justify" a movement by the USA, NATO, UN to get involved militarily. That in turn allows the GOP to have free range for their class war as we and the media focus on this new "war" (or what ever we will call it) and not on their attempt to strip the working class of all rights. The sad thing is an internally led revolution doesn't have to fail...the media just needs to sell to the masses the fact that we must get involved or Libya will become a haven for unrest and use of chemical and nuclear weapons. I assure you there are enough members of Congress to support military action in Libya as it benefits the economy, or so they believe.
I'll take the tin hat off now....

[karynnj]

4. I think you are premature in your concern

The fact is that there has been huge focus on the GOP mocing to cut rights - and this is hitting many personally. That is not going away. Now, I guess your concern is a variation of "wag the dog" - which was really a RW smear - saying that Clinton was trying to divert attention from his relationship with Monica. It is very hard to see how the party OUT OF POWER does this.

Are you seriously asking the Obama administration to get involved in a war - LYING that there are WMD? This sounds way too familiar - and it didn't work well. (It is hard to tell because the last paragraph is rather confusing.

If we get involved at all - at MINIMUM we need to hear the true reason. (So, far the most compelling is to stop a massacre that uses planes.)

[abqmufc]

6. You are misreading me...more like Shock Doctrine

I will always believe the government will avert our attention to other issues while they are able to do things under the radar. The best example I can give is one I researched in undergraduate - that is the flag burning constitutional amendment debate in the 1980s. Every time the GOP wanted to distract America to its actions on the budget, Iran/Contra scandal and other sinister acts they would always bring up the Flag Burning debate. The reason was they knew it would create such a heated debate that everyone would focus on it rather than the issues of real importance. I can see this GOP led Congress desperately wanting a new war or some overseas issue to allow media focus to shift from the class war in the USA to a revolution in the Middle East or Africa or wherever. During the Monica scandal I recall a lot of Free Trade deals being signed by the US and World Bank. Most of which are the root of what is going on in the global economy....so yeah the scandal of Monica did avert our attention while slick Billy and his group did some bad things. I don't trust any of them.

With that being said, I would never support any US backed war. Any war declared by a military industrial complex is an unjust war. We have enough on our hands here...mainly a well needed revolution that is about to start here, or so I hope. I also hope the revolution is non-violent but my lack of faith in the human race doesn't really lead me to believe it will be non-violent.

If you want to say its like Wag the Dog, OK...it has been years since I've seen that. I say it is more like a situation described in the Shock Doctrine. Seizing the opportunity and taking advantage of the situation. However, I do think Wag the Dog is a great Hollywood illustration of how media and the powers that be can manipulate a story to their advantage. I mean the media has not reported the truth of any war dating back to Vietnam and invasion into Cambodia.

Yes the GOP has being chipping away at rights, so has the Dems...and when we are not looking they will do even more. In a post 9-11 world often times we are willing to allow them bc of the fear they have sold us.

I am saying that the media lies and it seems the mass majority either buys into the media spin or they are too lazy to react to the lies. A prime example is the difference between USA media during the early days of the war and Canadian TV. I had friends move back to Canada b/c how much censorship existed in US news on the war. It was years later that our media told the stories of innocent people being killed.

For many in DC invading Libya or anyone for that matter would only help the economy, their re-election. I firmly disagree with that logic.

[karynnj]

7. I know what the shock doctrine is - and heard Klein speak at Take Back America

My point is that the Republicans have no control over what we do in Libya. The only one who can get the US involved is President Obama.

[EFerrari]

9. But the Republicans have no monopoly on anti-democratic foreign policy.

Honduras and Haiti even happened on Obama's watch and his administration came down firmly on the side of the oligarchs and the multinationals against the majorities in both countries.

This administration will side with whoever stabilizes Libya to business as usual, regardless of who it is.

[abqmufc]

10. Hence why I am a green anarchist...i don't trust either party...

and if you listen to Klein's interview on March 9, 2011 (Democracy Now!) you'd see she is skeptical of Obama's progressive movement that was promised. BTW that interview is great, starts with WI demonstrations and looking at via Shock Doctrine then she discusses her new book on Climate Change. Her comments on Carbon offset programs is spot on!

[abqmufc]

12. The GOP can surely influence the White House via give and take

We won't fuck with health care if you invade Libya. I don't put it past the GOP or the Dems to do such things. I've personally seen it done on environmental legislation (to a lesser extent) on the Hill. Such deals are how things get done. My perception of the GOP and even Obama is they'd be willing to go to war to avoid internal conflict which we are about to face.

[EFerrari]

8. In truth, the US government doesn't want nascent democracies in the ME

any more than it wants them in Latin America. They're too unpredictable and threaten the Saudis and other clients.

[abqmufc]

11. Yep you are right.

To me capitalism doesn't want it in any country. Marx's predictions are beginning to look more and more as a path to solve the problems we face today. But then that thought got me kicked out of a poli sci PhD program some years ago.

[David__77]

5. No, keep your hat on.

You're right in the main points. We need to oppose US intervention as much as we can, for various reasons. It will do the people of the world no good, and will certainly result in the failure of any popular movements.