NATO Commander: ‘Flickers’ Of Al Qaeda Among ‘Responsible’ Rebels” Huh???
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110329-714536.html By Siobhan Hughes WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--Intelligence reports about the leaders of a Libyan opposition group show "flickers" of potential ties to Al Qaeda and Hezbollah but the detail is not enough to indicate a significant terrorist presence, the head of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's military operations told Congress Tuesday.
U.S. Admiral James Stavridis, the NATO Supreme Allied Commander in Europe offered the assessment at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, where lawmakers are struggling to decide whether the U.S. made the right decision by intervening to stop Col. Moammar Gadhafi from attacking rebel forces at their stronghold in the eastern city of Benghazi.
“The intelligence that I’m receiving at this point makes me feel that the leadership that I’m seeing are responsible men and women who are struggling against Col. Gadhafi,” Stavridis said. “We have seen flickers in the intelligence of potential Al Qaeda, Hezbollah … but at this point I don’t have detail sufficient to say that there’s a significant Al Qaeda presence or any other terrorist presence in and among these folks. We’ll continue to look at that very closely–it’s part of doing due diligence–as we move forward on any kind of relationship.”
The comments come as lawmakers remain skeptical about multiple aspects of the operation in Libya, which is being turned over to NATO commanders after starting as a U.S.-led operation. Among the concerns is that the U.S. does not know enough about the opposition forces to determine their legitimacy.
“Wouldn’t it have been a good idea to find out before?” asked Jim Inhofe (R., Okla.)
Any operation in Libya could last for some time. Stavridis said it would be “premature” to describe a strategy for ending military actions in Libya and opened up the possibility of putting NATO personnel on the ground there as a way to stabilize the situation following political upheaval.
His testimony, before the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee, came as leaders of the 40 countries who resolved to protect Libyan civilians from Gadhafi met to map out a path forward for Libya and prepare opposition forces for an eventual takeover of the country.
“It’s frankly premature to say what’s our exit strategy until we have at least a little more clarity moving forward,” Stavridis said. But he said that “the possibility of a stabilization regime exists,” based on NATO’s experience in other countries, setting up a scenario in which ground forces could be used, although not necessarily from the U.S., which has said it will not send ground troops to Libya.
The NATO commander–who described his role as providing military options for the mission–took several rounds of criticisms at the first public hearing since the intervention began. The hearing exposed the breadth of congressional concern about U.S. involvement in Libya, which until Congress returned from recess this week had been mostly evident through press releases.
Lawmakers complained that the Obama administration had intervened without a clear picture of when to leave Libya or what could count as success if Gadhafi remains in power. They also complained about the costs of the military action–which U.S. President Barack Obama has not labeled a war–and worried that U.S. had set a precedent in which it would aid rebellions in other countries.
“I, like many others, have been wrestling with our involvement in Libya,” said Sen. Scott Brown (R., Mass.) “I’ve been asked the question: Who’s next? Under what circumstances do we do the same thing with other countries that are facing very similar circumstances. Are we going to now be the northern light for the entire region?”
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.) exploded in outrage after Stavridis said he thought the United Nations resolution that authorized international intervention in Libya was “a good thing to have.”
“I think that is interesting that you seem to be taking as your command the United Nations and the rules of command they have authorized,” Sessions said. “I think that the extent at which Congress has been bypassed in this process is rather breathtaking. … I hope there’s no suggestion that we’re establishing a precedent by which the United States won’t act unless multiple international bodies approve that action.”
Lawmakers will have a chance to express concerns on Wednesday, when Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton provide a classified briefing for Congress.
The costs of the operation for the U.S. are a big issue as Congress struggles to cut spending and rein in budget deficits. On Tuesday, the Pentagon put the cost to the U.S. at about $550 million so far, with much of the price tag coming from munitions such as Tomahawk missiles.
The costs to the U.S. may continue to remain disproportionately high, based on Stavridis’s estimates that the U.S. would continue to fly about 60% of sorties when NATO takes over the Libyan mission–down from about 65% earlier, when the U.S. was in the lead. Within NATO, the “nation bringing a force to a fight is the one that pays,” he said.
Sen. Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.) is among those worried.
“The total cost has been quite high,” Manchin said. “We’re going to be making some difficult decisions here, right here in America,” about cutting federal spending. “The costs that we’re spending elsewhere are real concerning.”
A looming question is what happens if Gadhafi remains in power. The situation strikes some U.S. lawmakers as untenable–and exposes a tension between the United Nations resolution, which calls for protecting Libyan civilians, and the Obama administration’s stated policy that Gadhafi must leave power.
“The statement is that we’re mostly there to avoid the humanitarian catastrophe,” said Sen. David Vitter (R., La.) “Everyone knows that the greatest threat toward that end is Gadhafi remaining in power and regaining control of the country–and yet ousting Gadhafi is not a goal of the operation. To the average Louisianan, that doesn’t connect.”
Stavridis walked a fine line, trying to stay within the limits of the U.N. authorization while also nodding to international calls that Gadhafi must go. In so doing, he came close to saying that the military action in Libya was intended to support the rebels.
“As distinct from the military mission that I am charged with, there’s a consistent refrain that the time has come for Gadhafi to move on,” Stavridis said. “The way those connect is a sense of by our participation in protecting the people of Libya, we create a safe and secure environment in which the people of Libya can make a determination in that they then have the ability to undertake the kind of effort that would in effect create regime change, as we’ve seen in other nations in the Middle East.”
Comments are closed.
