Obama Authorizes Covert Operations in Libya, as U.S. Considers Aiding Rebels, Sources Say

Obama Authorizes Covert Operations in Libya, as U.S. Considers Aiding Rebels, Sources Say

President Obama has signed a secret presidential finding authorizing covert operations in Libya, a U.S. official told Fox News, although the administration says it still hasn't decided whether to arm rebel forces there.

The presidential findings establish a framework of legal authorities for covert action. They can authorize specific actions, such as arming the rebels, or establish authorities under which future actions might be taken after permissions are given to undertake them.

In other words, covert actions won't start until the president signs off again. 

The Pentagon has begun drafting plans for arming the rebels if needed, sources told Fox News, but officials caution that no decision has been made because not enough is known yet about the rebels.

It will take “a little more passage of time and more interaction” with the Libyan rebels before the U.S. can make a well informed decision as to whether to arm the Libyan rebels, a senior Obama administration official told Fox News, but the official also cautioned that senior policymakers are not, at present, convinced that doing so “will bring about the desired outcome.”

The question of whether to arm the rebels has risen to the forefront of the debate over U.S. intervention in the war-torn country, as Obama has come out strongly against sending American ground troops to help oust Libya leader Muammar al-Qaddafi while also hesitating to support efforts behind the scenes to negotiate Qaddafi's exit.

More than a week after the start of coalition airstrikes on Qaddafi military sites in support of U.N.-authorized no-fly zone, the U.S. and its allies are presently in the position of seeing whether rebels can seize the moment and turn the tide against Qaddafi forces. U.S. military leaders have expressed skepticism that the rebels will prevail on their own.

Obama and his national security team are still hoping that events on the ground – such as the death or resignation of Col. Qaddafi – might spare them from having to make a decision about arming the rebels, the senior administration official told Fox News.

A senior military official told Fox News that the Pentagon is planning how and with what weapons it might arm Libyan rebel forces, but questions of legality have prevented the administration from springing the plan into action.

Although the legal framework exists within the U.N. resolution to arm rebels -- as has been pointed out repeatedly by members of the Obama administration this week -- the question is whether or not this rebel group falls into that legal framework.

"It's a question of the group's legitimacy," the military official said.

As NATO Supreme Allied Commander Adm. Stavridis pointed out Tuesday on Capitol Hill, intelligence has shown "flickers" of possible Al Qaeda involvement among these rebel groups, and this senior military official reinforced that point Wednesday, telling Fox News that "there is certainly an element there."

If the U.S. were to arm rebels the other big question is how to do it without putting troops on the ground. The simple answer the Pentagon is considering: Make the allies do it.

To fight Qaddafi's armored vehicles, the rebels need RPGs, the military source told Fox News. They also need ammunition, fuel and communications capabilities.

"The presumption is that if you give them weapons, you would need someone to train them," the official said, and because of the administration's promise not to put U.S. boots on the ground, that mission would likely fall to the special operations forces of partner countries, like the British or the French.

The senior administration official who spoke to Fox News on condition of anonymity also raised concerns about the "legal framework" for arming the reels.

“This is very much in line with what we have been saying. We are examining whether this group is the kind of entity we could provide arms to," the official said. "You could call that a legal question or a political one. But obviously if you give weapons to the wrong groups, it works counter to our interests.”

Asked about the caliber of U.S. intelligence on the Libyan rebels, the administration official acknowledged: “We are limited in what we have, especially given the outbreak of hostilities. We don’t have people on the ground. And intelligence is only so good. I’m not saying we don’t have the capability of developing a better read on these people – we do, and we are – but policy makers are very keen to get a clearer picture as soon as possible.”

The official noted that formal U.S. relations with Libya only date back about eighteen months, and that even since then, the country has remained “a fairly murky place.” Consequently, the official confirmed that the U.S. is relying more heavily than it ordinarily would on the intelligence provided by allied nations that have longer-standing ties in Tripoli.

Read more »

Obama Defends Military Mission in Libya, Says U.S. Acted to 'Prevent a Massacre

Obama Defends Military Mission in Libya, Says U.S. Acted to 'Prevent a Massacre

President Obama, defending his decision to send U.S. forces to Libya while outlining in unprecedented detail his foreign policy philosophy, said Monday that the United States acted to "prevent a massacre" and that to do otherwise would have been "a betrayal of who we are." 

The president, in a nationally televised address, stressed that he would not commit the U.S. military to toppling Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi's regime, warning that such a goal of regime change would fracture the coalition and require ground forces. He described that mission, rather, as one for the Libyan people, claiming the United States and its allies have "stopped Qaddafi's deadly advance" and will "keep the pressure" on his regime as the rebels continue fighting. 

"They will be able to determine their own destiny, and that is how it should be," Obama said. 

The president's speech, delivered nine days after he authorized military action in support of a U.N.-approved no-fly zone, was meant to answer mounting questions about the direction and purpose of the mission. The president once again described U.S. involvement as "limited" and said NATO would assume full control of the operation Wednesday -- though the president did not provide details about the conditions under which U.S. forces could leave the region. That omission prompted several complaints from lawmakers Monday night. 

But Obama also used the occasion to outline what could be called the Obama doctrine. Under that world view, the United States may intervene abroad to prevent humanitarian crises, provided international partners are involved. 

"There will be times, though, when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and our values are," Obama said. "In such cases, we should not be afraid to act -- but the burden of action should not be America's alone." 

The president argued that the crisis in Libya represented such a scenario. Faced with the possibility of massive bloodshed in Libya at the hands of Qaddafi -- whom he described as a "tyrant" and blamed for the deaths of Americans in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing -- Obama said U.S. interests and values were at stake, and the country had "a responsibility to act." He said "countless lives have been saved" as a result, and suggested that a massacre in Libya could have interrupted the momentum toward political reform elsewhere in the region. 

"While I will never minimize the costs involved in military action, I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America," Obama said. 

The president, unlike his predecessors, chose to deliver an address about U.S. military action not from the Oval Office, but before a military audience at the National Defense University in Washington, D.C. He also spoke more than a week after U.S. forces started launching missiles into Libya -- whereas his predecessors typically addressed the public from the very start of military involvement overseas. 

That delay compounded the criticism the president has faced from Congress. Some lawmakers say he should have first sought permission on Capitol Hill before committing U.S. forces; others complain that he has not been clear about whether the United States would be willing to end the military mission with Qaddafi still in power. 

Those complaints did not abate following the speech. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, complaining that the speech came "nine days late," said afterward that the president "failed to explain why he unilaterally took our nation to war without bothering to make the case to the U.S. Congress." He also accused the president of "splitting the difference" by continuing to call for Qaddafi's removal without explaining what it would take to remove him. 

"Nine days into this military intervention, Americans still have no answer to the fundamental question -- what does success in Libya look like?" said Mike Steel, spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner. 

Obama, though, described as a "false choice" the debate in Washington between those who believe the United States should not have intervened and those calling for an all-out campaign for regime change. 

"To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq," Obama said of the latter argument. "That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya." 

He said the U.S. role going forward would consist of intelligence operations, search-and-rescue missions, logistical support and help jamming Qaddafi's communications. 

Other lawmakers continued to applaud the president for his handling of the Libyan crisis. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the military intervened to "stave off a humanitarian crisis." 

The president spoke Monday as rebel forces continued to clash with those loyal to Qaddafi's regime. The protection from western allies has undoubtedly helped the rebels recover lost ground, but the outcome was still unclear. Rebels were advancing toward Qaddafi's hometown of Sirte on Monday, but a top U.S. army official said the opposition is not organized and "not a very robust organization." 

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said candidly Sunday that nobody knows how long the U.S. military could be involved in the conflict. 

Before his speech, Obama spoke Monday by videoconference with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and British Prime Minister David Cameron about the transition to NATO command.

Read more »