Confidential documents posted to Facebook by a group called WikiLeaks Libya show that a motley group of Washington fixers-for-hire mounted an 11th-hour push in April to revive Moammer Gadhafi’s sagging Washington reputation. And all they asked for their services was the nominal fee of $10 million from the Libyan strongman, who was killed by rebel forces last month in his hometown of Sirte. The story was first reported late Thursday by the New York Times’ Scott Shane and Penn Bullock.

The confidential documents, addressed to Your “Excellency Moammar Khaddafi,” and dated April 17, “contained a shock for the Americans: a three-page letter addressed to Colonel Qaddafi  . . . [offering] the Libyan dictator the lobbying services of what he called the ‘American Action Group’ to outmaneuver the rebels and win United States government support,” Shane and Bullock reported.

“Our group of Libyan sympathizers . . . would like to help to block the actions of your international enemies and to support a normal working relationship with the United States Government,” a letter signed by a Belgian member of the proposed lobbying group, Dirk Borgers, said, Shane and Bullock reported.

“Our group . . .  working inside the different services, Intelligence, Military, Congress and Administration, of the American government, since 30 plus years,” can help “block the actions of your international enemies” and “support a normal working relationship with the United States government,” the proposal to Gadhafi stated.

The letter also lists a roster of members for the proposed “American Action Group.” The terrorism specialist Neil Livingstone was a lead name; he reportedly recently closed his lobbying firm Executive Action LLC to explore a GOP run for governor in Montana. Also included on the list were Kansas City, Missouri attorney Randell K. Wood of Wood Law Firm LLC; former senior CIA Middle East officer Marty Martin; and Neil Alpert, pitched in the documents as a onetime fundraiser for the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee and the Republican National Committee.

The release of the confidential letter “is especially awkward for Mr. Livingstone,” Shane and Bullock noted, since offering his services to Gadhafi could presumably complicate his designs on the Montana governorship.  [Yahoo News]

Just goes to show that people are willing to do anything for money.  I bet there are people out there willing to lobby to keep the Kim Jong-il regime in power for the right price.

Joseph Kony

The United States is venturing into one of Africa’s bloodiest conflicts, sending about 100 U.S. troops to central Africa to support a years-long fight against a guerrilla group accused of horrific atrocities.

The Obama administration said the troops will advise, not engage in combat, unless forced to defend themselves.

In a letter to Congress, President Barack Obama said Friday that the troops will assist local forces in a long-running battle against the Lord’s Resistance Army, considered one of Africa’s most ruthless rebel groups, and help to hunt down its notorious leader, Joseph Kony.

The first of the troops arrived in Uganda on Wednesday, the White House said, and others will be sent to South Sudan, the Central African Republic and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

While the size of the U.S. footprint is small, Obama’s announcement represents a highly unusual intervention for the United States. Although some American troops are based in Djibouti and small groups of soldiers have been deployed to Somalia, the U.S. traditionally has been reluctant to commit forces to help African nations put down insurgencies.

You can read more at the link, but it appears that these US soldiers will be advising African troops and using 4 small drones to help locate the militants.  It looks like as the US military transitions out of fighting the big wars in Iraq in Afghanistan it will be transitioning into fighting in small wars like this.  I would think that the White House must believe this Joseph Kony guy is a threat to assist international terrorists to deploy troops like this?  Or this could be an attempt by the US to gain increased influence in Africa in response to the heavy Chinese involvement in the continent?  It is operations like this our special operations forces should be doing so I really don’t see a problem with the deployment but has anyone seen any other good articles to read about this issue?

The South Korean government says it is officially recognizing Libya’s Transitional National Council (TNC) as a legitimate governing body.

As rebel forces almost ended the reign of longtime Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi, the South Korean Foreign Ministry on Wednesday issued a spokesman’s statement that Seoul acknowledges the TNC as representing the Libyan people.

Moreover, the government reaffirmed it will offer one million U.S. dollars worth of aid for the TNC, adding that additional aid will be provided by the South Korean civilian sector.   [KBS Global]

Colin: NATO is taking control of the Libyan no-fly zone, but what happens if there’s a prolonged stalemate down on the battlefield, and probably, not by coincidence, Hamas has picked this time to open up a new conflict with Israel.

Welcome to Agenda with George Friedman, who joins me now to examine both issues. I asked him first about Libya.

George: Well the problem here is basically that a no-fly zone has very little effect on the fighting on the ground. Most of the casualties being inflicted by the Libyan army on the insurgents are inflicted by artillery, some by rocket fire and so on. We’ve had some air attacks on ground forces, which seems to be somewhat different for the mission as originally laid out, but clearly that’s taking place. But it’s always been the belief that somehow a ground force can be destroyed from the air so to such a degree that it can no longer fight. It’s rarely been the case, and I don’t think it’s the case in Libya. If you want to defeat Gadhafi, you’re going to have to go in on the ground. Plus, if you’re going to have airstrikes, you’re going to have collateral damage — in other words, you’re going to kill other people than you intend to. No matter how accurate the weapon is that you fired at a artillery piece or tank, when you blow up a huge piece of metal, shards will fly in all directions and it will hurt and it’ll kill people, and there’s no way out of this.

Now, we have a contradiction. On the one hand, this is a humanitarian intervention. It has put severe limits on what can be done — the French have said that they’re not going in on the ground, the Americans have indicated the same thing. They’re going to try to do this all through the air and they’re going to try to do this without civilian casualties. That’s the impasse. The impasse is not whether the coalition has the ability to get rid of Gadhafi — it does. Whether it can get rid of Gadhafi under the current rules of engagement that appear to be in place is a much more serious question. I’d have to argue that unless there are significant negotiations underway right now to give Gadhafi a safe haven, he’s not going to leave. And given the precedents of Milosevic and others who have been brought to The Hague for war crimes, his motivation to leave is much less than anyone else’s would be.

Colin: There are not many places, George, that would welcome Gadhafi.

George: Well, and even worse, the negotiators that might be able to negotiate a safe haven in some country can’t guarantee that the international court won’t reach out and try to have him extradited and won’t have him extradited. In other words, you’re in a situation where in the negotiation one of things that Gadhafi is going to demand, in return for a cessation of hostilities, is a safe passage. And extraordinarily no one is in a position to give that guarantee, unless I suppose U.N. Security Council would formally give it, and I don’t know that would hold. So you’re in a situation where what you really want is Gadhafi to voluntarily step down and he’s in no position to do so — he’s much safer where he is, fighting the war.

Colin: The Gadhafi stronghold is Tripoli, the main opposition is in and around Benghazi — there could be a long stalemate. Leaving aside humanitarian issues, does that matter geopolitically?

George: I have to say that, since Libya is a country of six million, it does have some substantial energy exports but not an overwhelming impact on the global economy. In many ways, we’ve selected to fight in a place that geopolitically has only marginal interest. Certainly for the United States, it has minimal interest, it has somewhat greater interest for the Europeans, but whether or not this stalemate goes on will have geopolitical significance to the extent that the outside powers decide to insert major force. And it will have that significance because, for the United States for example — stretched as it is by Afghanistan and Iraq and some other conflicts — this is someplace that if you put major force in, you’re really straining the American capability to fight. This is why the United States has insisted this is a European problem, but the Europeans are clearly divided, the French have made it clear that they’re not coming on the ground.

It’s very difficult to see how this ends except in a negotiators’ settlement, and it’s very difficult to see what Gadhafi’s motivation for negotiation is. Possibly, there will be some negotiations with some other members of his faction who will take care of him in return for safe conduct on their part, but a lot of these people have extraordinarily bloody hands, all of them undoubtedly belong in The Hague, and you can’t give them the guarantees they won’t wind up there. So, like people who are cornered, they’ll fight.

Colin: Meanwhile, we have something else to worry about — something quite serious. The attack just south of Tel Aviv, probably Hamas inspired. A big provocation to Israel?

George: Well we have seen in the past few days recounting about 60 attacks with longer range missiles and also with the mortar fire. Those are too many attacks to be lone wolves. They’re coming from Gaza and they’re clearly under the order of Hamas.

Hamas is now stepping up its operations against the Israelis and the interesting question to ask is why. When you think about it, this is a superb moment for Hamas. The Egyptian government has retained its treaty with Israel, but on the other hand there are strong forces there that will want to abrogate it. The Saudis who support them are preoccupied with events in Bahrain and the rest of the Persian Gulf. If they can force the Israelis into a military response in Gaza, this will inflame passions in the region, particularly in Egypt. The possibility of creating a situation where either the current government must abrogate the treaty with Israel or alternatively where a new government comes into place in the coming elections, it is an extraordinary opportunity for Hamas. For Hamas, its future is based on Egypt ending its relationship with Israel, participating in the blockade and becoming hostile toward Israel and friendly toward Hamas. If they can get that, it’s worth a great deal, and if they get the Israelis to attack into Gaza, they may well inflame the passions sufficiently.

Therefore, Hamas has appeared to have decided to move to a more aggressive stance, and particularly in firing, as you put it, toward Tel Aviv. They are pushing the envelope of what the Israelis can tolerate without responding. They haven’t quite gotten as far north as Tel Aviv — it was toward Tel Aviv but south of it. But should they be able to configure a rocket that goes that far, that’s the redline that will force the Israelis to intervene and finding these stockpiles of rockets is not going to be all that easy. If you get another Gaza war, Hamas gets what it wants in Egypt — things can evolve. So, this is very serious and very important.

Colin: Is there any evidence Iran is involved?

George: Well, Iran has been said to be supplying things to Hamas, but there is a difference in supplying things to Hamas and controlling Hamas. Hamas is most dependent on Saudi Arabia, but Hamas, more than anything else, is a self-contained organization pursuing its own interests.

What will be interesting to see, however, is what Hezbollah does up in the north. Hezbollah is dependent on Iran and is highly influenced and even controlled by Iran. And the Iranians very much want the position of being the most dynamic and aggressive force in the region. We have this event going on in Bahrain, we have other events in the western littoral of the Persian Gulf. Iran, showing itself to be more aggressive against Israel rather than other countries, put Saudi Arabia in a very difficult position and potentially undermines other regimes in the region. This is the perfect moment for the Iranians to attack. We see no evidence at the moment of any movement by Hezbollah toward launching an attack, and Israel certainly is not going to unilaterally go into Lebanon at a time when it’s facing Hamas, but the situation has suddenly become enormously difficult. And the things that have been happening in Bahrain and in Egypt suddenly coalesce into the Israeli question I think in a way it hasn’t been there for quite a while.

Libya is a sideshow to this. Now the question is going to be whether Hamas continues these attacks are not, and that’s simply not clear. But we’re watching very carefully to see what’s going to happen with these attacks — whether they escalate and whether Israel is going to decide to respond.

Colin: George, thanks very much. And, of course, STRATFOR will be monitoring this closely. That’s Agenda for this week, for me Colin Chapman, until the next time, goodbye.

By the way if you are not reading STRATFOR I highly recommend that you begin doing so because they provide some great analysis of world events that you just can’t get from watching the talking heads on TV or even from reading newspapers.

In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.  [Boston.com via Outside the Beltway]

Obviously someone’s viewpoint on things can change over time especially when one becomes the leader of the free world responsible for making tough decisions.  But like I said before the mental gymnastics going on right now to justify the attack is quite interesting to watch.   I am surprised though that the President didn’t bring this before Congress though because they likely would have authorized the action though they probably would ask many of the questions I have been wondering.

First of all it is unclear to me on who is the Rebel Alliance we are helping?  Are they even the majority of the people in Libya?  Where is the evidence of Bosnia like atrocities being committed by Gadhafi regime?  If the military action is not to remove the regime then what happens if the Rebel Alliance cannot defeat Gadhafi’s forces and it turns into a East-West stalemate in Libya?  Does the coalition maintain a No-Fly-Zone indefinitely then?  Does Libya get divided into two states?  Also if the coalition is authorized to protect civilians and not target Gadhafi than why did the coalition bomb his residential compound?  Finally, who is going to take command of this war after the US turns to a support role?  Oh by the way what does support role mean?  Lot’s of questions that I hope someone has already worked through.

It would be ideal if the Gadhafi regime would all just flee to Venezuela and the Rebel Alliance turns out to be filled with the Arab equivalents of Washington, Franklin, Adams, & Jefferson, but when have things ever gone ideally in that part of the world?  I hope things work out in a way beneficial to the US, but at least if things go to hell over there I don’t see how anyone can blame the US for it this time.

The United Nations authorised military action to curb Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi on Thursday, hours after he threatened to storm the rebel bastion of Benghazi overnight, showing “no mercy, no pity.”

“We will come, zenga, zenga. House by house, room by room,” he said in a radio address to the eastern city.

Al Jazeera television showed thousands of Benghazi residents in a central square celebrating the U.N. vote, waving anti-Gaddafi tricolour flags and chanting defiance of the man who has ruled for four decades. Fireworks burst over the city.

Gaddafi had warned that only those who lay down their arms would be spared vengeance to be exacted on ‘rats and dogs’.

“It’s over. The issue has been decided,” Gaddafi said. “We are coming tonight…We will find you in your closets.

“We will have no mercy and no pity.”

The U.N. Security Council passed a resolution endorsing a no-fly zone to halt government troops now around 100 km (60 miles) from Benghazi. It also authorised “all necessary measures” — code for military action — to protect civilians against Gaddafi’s forces.  [Reuters]

I think it is always good to get a UN authorization if possible, but this is of course appears to be too little too late which is probably why the Russians and Chinese didn’t veto it.  The rebels have pretty much been routed back to their strongholds in the east and now Gaddafi is saying that they will implement a ceasefire.  I guess we will see what happens.  I am real curious to see what the US involvement in this will be?  I would love to see the Europeans for a change carry the load on something like this instead of the US doing all the heavy lifting all the time.

I am also wondering what the end state to this is? Is the US for regime change in Libya and if so how do we plan to do that because the UN resolution doesn’t authorize that?  If Gaddafi doesn’t want to step down does the UN partition the country into two different states? By the way who are these rebels we are backing?  Most importantly did anyone consult Code Pink on this?  Lot’s of unanswered questions on this one.

A month shy of his election in 2008, presidential candidate Barack Obama outlined a doctrine for American military force that included crises in which the United States has a “moral obligation” to intervene. As commander in chief, he soon will have to decide whether Libya fits the bill.

Obama is facing the sternest test yet of his philosophy of humanitarian intervention, which he has described as an imperative to prevent atrocities against civilians.  [Associated Press]

Read the rest at the link, but the Obama Doctrine was formed during his campaign in response to what was going on in Darfur.  Libya obviously falls far short of Darfur, but if a humanitarian crisis is rationale for a military intervention than an intervention in North Korea should have happened a long time ago, not that I am advocating for one.  I am just pointing out that intervening in a humanitarian crisis is not always practical or advisable.

What I do know is that Moammar Gadhafi is probably wishing he didn’t give up his nuclear weapons program now.

Anyway Tom Ricks has some options for the President and appears to be leaning towards a full military action to remove Gadhafi instead of a no fly zone that he believes is a half measure that doesn’t guarantee success.

South Korean special forces stormed a hijacked freighter in the Arabian Sea on Friday, rescuing all 21 crew members and killing eight assailants in a rare and bold raid on Somali pirates.

The military operation in waters between Oman and Africa — that also captured five pirates and left one crew member wounded — came a week after the Somali attackers seized the South Korean freighter and held hostage eight South Koreans, two Indonesians and 11 citizens from Myanmar.

“We will not tolerate any behavior that threatens the lives and safety of our people in the future,” South Korean President Lee Myung-bak said in a brief televised statement, adding that the rescue was a “perfect operation.”

*****

With a South Korean destroyer and a Lynx helicopter providing covering fire, South Korea’s special navy forces stormed the hijacked vessel in a pre-dawn rescue operation that left eight of the pirates dead and five captured, Lt. Gen. Lee Sung-ho told reporters.

The captain of the ship was shot by a pirate and taken by a U.S. helicopter to a nearby country for treatment, but the wound is not life-threatening, Lt. Gen. Lee said. The 20 other crew members were rescued unharmed, he said.- Associated Press

If this news report is accurate, it was a job well done by South Korean special forces.  Another news report says the pirates left the Samho Jewelry to attack another vessel. That was when Special Forces moved in.

Zimbabwean aviation officials misinformed news organizations Thursday that a Boeing 767 arriving from London was involved in an accident at Harare’s airport, then told journalists rushing to the scene it was only a drill.

David Chawota, head of the Zimbabwe Civil Aviation Authority, said the information was given out to make the drill realistic.

“Telling the media was part of the exercise. We wanted to see how the media would react,” he told a news conference at the main Harare International airport.

“In the event, the drill was a success because all our systems worked perfectly. Police, security and hospital staff reacted swiftly” along with the media, he said.

Soldiers, paramilitary police and security agents sealed off approaches to the airport and guarded the perimeter. Military helicopters hovered aloft as smoke rose from one runway. Reporters were not allowed close enough to see the site of the reported accident.

At Harare’s Parirenyatwa hospital, extra doctors and nurses were on hand and told patients in line at the emergency room that they were expecting casualties from the main airport. The atmosphere at the hospital was tense as staff evidently believed it was a genuine emergency, witnesses said.- Associated Press

The trouble with these drills is, medical workers are diverted from caring for real patients who need real care. A Las Vegas Hospital  had an unannounced terrorist drill  and  ICU nurses and Doctors were rounded up and put in a break room. Some of the geniuses who thought that drill have been fired. I doubt that will happen in Zimbabwe.

South Africa’s police are investigating after thieves stripped a police station of all its contents, down to the kitchen sink.

The office was under renovations and ready for re-occupation when the thieves hit, reports South Africa’s Times Newspaper.

The robbers helped themselves to everything of value – including doors, cupboards, basins, cutlery, tiles, furniture, electrical equipment and mortuary fridges.

Officers from the Carletonville police station, west of Johannesburg, have had to cram into three small rooms.

The space is inadequate, and there with no holding cells or parking spaces. The rent costs the police about 127,000 rand ($17,000; £11,430) each month, reports The Times.

It is not clear how the burglars managed to clean out the office without being detected by the security company contracted by the Department of Public Works to guard the premises.-Reuters

One official said the incident was typical of South Africa’s Dept. of Public Works.  I wouldn’t be surprised if it was an inside job.