Muammar Gaddafi Allegedly Sodomized After Capture

It's pretty awful, but seriously? Folks are going to get worked up about this? The dude promised to go "house to house" to cleanse the "greasy rats" from Libya.

There's commentary at CBS News, "GlobalPost: Qaddafi apparently sodomized after capture." (Via Memeorandum.)

Or go straight to the source, "Gaddafi sodomized: Video shows abuse frame by frame (GRAPHIC)."

Gaddafi Killed by Shot to the Head

Well, you think?

It's not like it took a forensic medical examiner to figure it out.

See CBS News, "Autopsy: Qaddafi was killed by shot to head." (Via Memeorandum and Doug Powers at Michelle's.)

Successes Overseas Are Unlikely to Help Obama at Home

Not only will there be little gain politically, but we could be witnessing a weakening strategic situation in the Middle East. Lots of instability across the region combined with a declining U.S. presence. This is a major transformation in international politics, but the concerns are at home, and Obama needs some successes on that front. See NYT:

WASHINGTON — President Obama’s announcement that the last American soldiers will leave Iraq by the end of this year capped a momentous week in which he could also take credit for helping dispatch one of the world’s great villains, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.

Conventional wisdom holds that none of this will matter to Mr. Obama’s frayed political fortunes, which will be determined by the economy rather than the notches he is piling up on his statesman’s belt.

Yet Mr. Obama’s withdrawal from Iraq — a campaign pledge kept — and the successful NATO air campaign in Libya — with no American casualties, and at a tiny fraction of the cost of Iraq — allowed him to thread a political needle: reaffirming his credentials as a wartime leader while reassuring his Democratic base that he is making good on the promises that got him elected.

This one-two punch may also strengthen the president’s hand against his eventual Republican opponent, according to Mr. Obama’s supporters, by depriving Republicans of a cudgel typically used on Democratic presidents, that they are weak on national security. The swift and fierce criticism of his Iraq decision by the Republican candidates shows how reluctant they are to cede this advantage to him.

“There is an aggregate effect to all the president’s foreign policy successes,” said Bill Burton, a former White House aide who is a senior strategist at Priorities USA Action, a political action committee backing the Obama campaign. “The notion of who is a stronger leader will be deeply influenced by the promises the president kept.”

Gaddafi Wearied of Life on the Run

At New York Times, "In His Last Days, Qaddafi Wearied of Fugitive’s Life.

And at Telegraph UK, "Gaddafi's final hours: Nato and the SAS helped rebels drive hunted leader into endgame in a desert drain."

RELATED: At London's Daily Mail, "Rebel fighter answered Gaddafi daughter's desperate phone call and told her: Old Fuzzhead is dead."

Gaddafi Stole a 'Staggering' $200 Billion in Libyan Assets

At LAT, "As Libya takes stock, Moammar Kadafi's hidden riches astound":

If the values prove accurate, Kadafi will go down in history as one of the most rapacious as well as one of the most bizarre world leaders, on a scale with the late Mobutu Sese Seko in Zaire or the late Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines.

Yeah, and some dude at The Guardian is bawling about how Gaddafi didn't get a "private" death. Like he deserved it, idiot.

Gaddafi's Burial Delayed

At Sydney Morning Herald, "Gaddafi on display in freezer as row rages over killing," and Washington Post, "Libyans line up to see Gaddafi’s body on display; groups call for probe into death."

New Footage Shows Muammar Gaddafi Begging for His Life

At Telegraph UK, "Rebels argued over whether to kill Gaddafi as he begged for his life."

Roundup: Death of Muammar Gaddafi

Here's the top story at this morning's New York Times front-page: "Violent End to an Era as Qaddafi Dies in Libya." And video of the final moments is at London's Daily Mail, "Who shot Gaddafi? New video shows blood pouring from dictator immediately before death but mystery surrounds coup de grace."

Check back for updates.

AUDIO — Rush Limbaugh Rejects Obama Administration's Uganda Mission to Remove Lord's Resistance Army

Here's the audio on YouTube (transcript here):

Rush does not mention that L.R.A. is a gross violator of human rights. See Human Right Watch: "CAR/DR Congo: LRA Conducts Massive Abduction Campaign." And again at New York Times, "Armed U.S. Advisers to Help Fight African Renegade Group." And from March 2010, "Fleeing Rebels Kill Hundreds of Congolese." No doubt L.R.A. is a pretty atrocious outfit. The Bush administration had been supporting the Uganda army's campaign against the group. And here's a scholarly source as well, from Frank Van Acker, at African Affairs, "Uganda and the Lord's Resistance Army: The New Order No One Ordered."

But listen to Limbaugh. His argument is internally consistent: He opposes sending more troops to the region in what may escalate to an open-ended commitment. Rush compares Obama's authorization of force in Libya. The administration promised the mission would be measured in "days, not weeks." That was 7 months ago. No president in the post-Vietnam era has been this reckless on war powers. See, "Obama's Illegal War." And Rush Limbaugh's reference to Christians is an attack on the administration's hypocrisy. We've done nothing to help Christians in Egypt, so Limbaugh snorts:

Lord's Resistance Army are Christians. It means God. I was only kidding. Lord's Resistance Army are Christians. They are fighting the Muslims in Sudan. And Obama has sent troops, United States troops to remove them from the battlefield, which means kill them. That's what the lingo means, "to help regional forces remove from the battlefield," meaning capture or kill.

So that's a new war, a hundred troops to wipe out Christians in Sudan, Uganda, and -- (interruption) no, I'm not kidding. Jacob Tapper just reported it. Now, are we gonna help the Egyptians wipe out the Christians? Wouldn't you say that we are? I mean the Coptic Christians are being wiped out, but it wasn't just Obama that supported that. The conservative intelligentsia thought it was an outbreak of democracy. Now they've done a 180 on that, but they forgot that they supported it in the first place. Now they're criticizing it.

That's the context.

But idiot progressives are spinning this as backing terrorists. See Matthew Yglesias, "Rush Limbaugh Endorses the Lord’s Resistance Army." Well, no he does not. He's not endorsing any action in Africa, actually. He's arguing a realist position that our interests aren't threatened. He's attacking this administration's ad hoc foreign policy, which is classical wag-the-dog interventionism. And he's attacking the euphoria over the "Arab Spring" in Egypt early this year, which has now deteriorated into ethnic cleansing. But radical progressives hate Limbaugh so much they refuse to place his commentary in the proper context. Typical.

Added: From Blake Hounshell, at Foreign Policy, "Rush Limbaugh on Lord's Resistance Army: "Obama Invades Uganda, Targets Christians."

Obama Administration to Deploy Military Advisors to Uganda

This is out of the blue, or something.

At New York Times, "Armed U.S. Advisers to Help Fight African Renegade Group":‎

WASHINGTON — President Obama said Friday that he had ordered the deployment of 100 armed military advisers to central Africa to help regional forces combat the Lord’s Resistance Army, a notorious renegade group that has terrorized villagers in at least four countries with marauding bands that kill, rape, maim and kidnap with impunity.

The deployment represents a muscular escalation of American military efforts to help fight the Lord’s Resistance Army, which originated as a Ugandan rebel force in the 1980s and morphed into a fearsome cultlike group of fighters. It is led by Joseph Kony, a self-proclaimed prophet known for ordering village massacres, recruiting prepubescent soldiers, keeping harems of child brides and mutilating opponents.

“For more than two decades, the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) has murdered, raped and kidnapped tens of thousands of men, women and children in central Africa,” Mr. Obama wrote in a letter to Congress announcing the military deployment. “The LRA continues to commit atrocities across the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and South Sudan that have a disproportionate impact on regional security.”

The decision by Mr. Obama to deploy armed military advisers into the region was welcomed by human rights advocates who have chronicled the atrocities committed by Mr. Kony and his subordinates. But it also raises the risk of putting American military personnel in harm’s way in another region while the United States is winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Well, it's certainly fits the progressive rationale for foreign military intervention: human rights. But 100 "advisers"? Sounds like how the Kennedy administration sent advisers to Vietnam and we ended up with 500,000 troops in country by the end of 1965. And boy, it's that some creepy group, the LRA. I'd be interested to hear some of the internal White House debate on the mission.

Anyway, see Rush Limbaugh for the critique, which I'm not necessarily endorsing, "Obama Invades Uganda, Targets Christians." (Via Memeorandum.)

Ron Paul Decries Awlaki Killing

It's just too predictable. Is there any use of force this clown won't decry?

At LAT, "Ron Paul criticizes Obama for U.S. role in killing of Awlaki."

Libyan Rebels Enter Bani Walid in Final Push

At Telegraph UK.

The Battle for Sirte

At Telegraph UK, "Libya: Over 800 killed in battle for Gaddafi's home town of Sirte."

Libya's transitional leaders believe hundreds of their supporters have been gunned down in Colonel Gaddafi's home town of Sirte by desperate regime loyalists, even as they try to negotiate its surrender.



The town is Gaddafi's biggest remaining Libya stronghold and rebel commanders know his forces are dug in for a bloody battle.



For now opposition forces have held their positions to the east and west as they wait for tribal elders to negotiate with Gaddafi fighters.



But Shamsiddin Ben-Ali, a spokesman in the rebel city of Benghazi, said 800 people had been killed in the past three days.



"Many of the people of Sirte are on our side now and want to be part of the revolution," he said. "The people with guns though are still resisting."



The death toll raises a bloody conundrum for the country's new leaders: rushing in could spell a military disaster but waiting is costing a very high price in civilian casualties.

Also at Telegraph, "Libya: rebels prepare to seize Bani Walid."

Just War Theory

A cool discussion, with Michael Walzer:

RELATED: At Dissent, from 2006, "Regime Change and Just War," by Michael Walzer. And the response, which destroys Walzer's argument, from Jean Bethke Elshtain: "Jean Bethke Elshtain Responds."



And more Walzer, more recently, at New Republic, "The Case Against Our Attack on Libya."

To the Shores of Tripoli

From Robert Kagan, at Weekly Standard:

... the end of Qaddafi’s rule is a great accomplishment for the Obama administration and for the president personally. It is a shame that some administration officials are trying to downplay the role of the United States in this whole affair, absurdly trying to turn the “leading from behind” gaffe into a kind of Obama doctrine. In fact, the United States was not “leading from behind.” By far the most important decision taken by any world leader in this entire episode—the decision that made all the difference—was President Obama’s decision that the United States and the world could not stand by and see the people of Ben ghazi massacred.



That American choice was the turning point. All praise to France’s Nicolas Sarkozy and Britain’s David Cameron for being ahead of the president in seeing the need for armed action—just as Margaret Thatcher was ahead of George H.W. Bush in seeing the need for action against Saddam Hussein in 1990. But here is the plain and critical truth of the matter: None of this could have been done without the United States leading the way.



Only the United States has the military capacity, the weaponry, the surveillance technology, and the skill to open a safe path for the air and ground war against Qaddafi’s forces. France and Britain alone would not and probably could not have done the job without unacceptable risk to their forces, which were very thin to begin with. In the early days, especially, American A-10 and AC-130 ground attack aircraft were critical in pummeling Qaddafi’s armored vehicles and forcing them to halt offensives against rebel positions. In the last days of the conflict, American high-tech surveillance allowed the rebels to pinpoint the positions of Qaddafi forces in and around Tripoli. Throughout months of fighting, prowling American Predator drones forced Qaddafi and his men to keep their heads down.



The president and his secretary of state also carried out an adept diplomacy that eventually garnered not only European but, remarkably, Arab support as well. This in turn forced both Russia and China—fearful of Arab wrath—to acquiesce. There were costs, of course: a U.N. resolution inadequate to the task at hand and the usual problem of trying to keep many players on board during a mission. On balance, however, it was worth it. The administration was surely right that the intervention would be more effective if it did not appear to be exclusively an American operation and that the combination of European and Arab support for removing Qaddafi was enough of a prize to warrant some compromises.



But the larger point is that, again, only the United States could have pulled all these disparate political and regional forces together. No other nation, not France, not Great Britain, not even a united EU (which German opposition prevented) could have managed this global diplomatic task. In this allegedly “post-American” world, the United States remains both indispensable and irreplaceable.

That's a dramatically different take than Max Boot's, "Did Libya Vindicate 'Leading From Behind'?" Boot doesn't love America's reserve role in these interventions, especially since success requires American military power to begin with. Why shrug off our leadership role and argue "we've got your back"? Kagan just calls it an American victory no matter how you slice it. But all along I've found Victor Davis Hanson's arguments to be the most compelling, which hold, for example, that the Obama administration hadn't the slightest clue about toppling Gaddafi, as evidenced by the administration's pathetic flip-flopping on the goal of regime change or not.



In any case, Kagan and Boot agree on one thing: The war's not over yet.

Libya War Not Yet Over

Well, I need to start watching MSNBC more often. I just love Reva Bhalla, Director of Analysis at STRATFOR:

And at Telegraph UK, "Gaddafi releases new audio message," and "Gaddafi vows to 'let Libya burn' as he defies calls for surrender."



Plus, "Libya: rebels prepare to seize Bani Walid."

'Join the Rejects'

This story about UCLA student Chris Jeon joining the rebel insurgency in Libya reminded me of the Cockney Rejects: "Join the Rejects rebels and get yourself killed":

Also at Washington Post, "American student Chris Jeon joins Libyan rebels."

Did Libya Vindicate 'Leading From Behind'?

Max Boot gives Obama the boot on Libya, at WSJ and RCP. Boot's normally pretty gung ho on foreign military intervention, so I'm sensing a little disappointment overall. That is, more forward deployed U.S. power earlier in Libya would have not only shortened the war, but made for a stronger precedent in future crises. See Boot's earlier piece, "It's Not Too Late to Save Libya."

Libyan National Transitional Council

That's the first I've seen of that term, at the description from this video at Telegraph UK:

Also, "Libya: Saif al-Islam Gaddafi vows to continue the war and retake Tripoli."



See also New York Times, "Son Denies Rebels’ Claim That Qaddafi Is Cornered":

TRIPOLI, Libya — A top official of Libya’s transitional government said Wednesday that its fighters had cornered Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi in a desert redoubt 150 miles from the capital and were exhorting him to give up, in what would bring a sense of finality to the prolonged uprising that routed him and his family from Tripoli a week ago.



But one of Colonel Qaddafi’s fugitive sons, Seif al-Islam el-Qaddafi, threw a new if improbable taunt at the rebels even as they said they had closed in on his father, vowing in an audio statement that loyalists would never surrender and insisting that “victory will be near.”



“Our leadership is fine,” he said in the statement broadcast on the Al Rai television channel of Syria and other Arab broadcasting outlets. “We are drinking tea and coffee.”



Seif al-Islam gave no indication in the statement of his precise whereabouts except that he was in a Tripoli suburb, and it was not clear if his remarks had been prerecorded. But the statement itself raised the possibility of more fighting and underscored the ability of the Qaddafis to frustrate the alliance of rebel forces that has become the effective government of Libya.

Maybe folks should hold off on this talk of a "transitional council." You gotta get that old council out before you can transition a new one.

Gaddafi Family Members in Algeria

At Los Angeles Times, "Members of Kadafi family flee to Algeria":

Members of Moammar Kadafi's family, including his wife, daughter and two of his sons, have fled to Algeria, the government of the neighboring country said Monday.



Algerian state television reported that Kadafi relatives who arrived Monday through a border crossing included the deposed Libyan leader's wife, Safiya, his daughter, Aisha, and two of his sons, Hannibal and Mohammed. The group also included an undisclosed number of Kadafi's grandchildren, Algeria said.



The Algerian government said it had informed both the United Nations and the Libyan rebels' Transitional National Council that the group had arrived.



But there was no answer to a much bigger question: Where was Moammar Kadafi himself?

Also at NYT, "Qaddafi’s Wife and 3 of His Children Flee to Algeria."