Clinton: Mission in Libya is on track

Hillary Clinton says the NATO mission in Libya is on trackThe rebels are gaining strength and momentum, she saysPressure mounts for Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi to step down

(CNN) -- The NATO mission in Libya is on track, with pressure on leader Moammar Gadhafi mounting and the rebel forces growing stronger, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Saturday.

"We need to see this through, and we are in complete agreement that we will," she said, speaking alongside Spanish Foreign Minister Trinidad Jiminez in Madrid.

Asked about a threat by Gadhafi to take the war to Europe, in an audio message broadcast Friday, Clinton said: "Instead of issuing threats, Gadhafi should put the interests and well-being of his people first and should step down from power."

She urged him to help enable a transition to a democratic government.

Clinton hailed Spain for its contribution to enforcing the no-fly zone over Libya and an arms embargo on the country, describing Spain as "a valued partner and a trusted friend."

NATO began bombing military targets in Libya after the U.N. Security Council approved a resolution in March authorizing force by whatever means necessary, with the exception of a ground invasion, to protect civilians.

Gadhafi has so far resisted international pressure to step down.

"You are mistaken, you are involved in a battle that you don't know what you are going to face, so withdraw, and run away," he told a pro-government gathering in Tripoli, according to an audio message aired by state TV.

Gadhafi said he " is able in one day to move the battle to the Mediterranean, and able to move the battle to Europe."

He vowed vengeance for the NATO bombings, saying the Libyan military could be "like locusts, like bees" in Europe. Homes and offices could be potential targets, he said.

A State Department spokesman said the United States would take Gadhafi's remarks seriously, but added that the Libyan leader was "given to overblown rhetoric."

CNN

House set to rebuke Obama on Libya mission

Washington (CNN) -- The Republican-led House of Representatives rejected a bill Friday that would have sharply restricted funding for U.S. involvement in the NATO-led Libya campaign.

The bill, which would have effectively prohibited U.S. offensive operations such as drone strikes, was supported by House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and other top GOP leaders.

The measure was defeated in a 180-238 vote. Minority Democrats voted solidly against the measure, while the majority Republicans supported it by a narrower margin.

Earlier in the day, House members delivered a rebuke to the Obama administration by voting down a resolution expressing support for the war. The resolution, defeated 123-295, was similar to a measure introduced in the Senate by Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, and Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona.

Republicans voted overwhelmingly against the measure, while Democrats voted more narrowly in favor of it.

White House press secretary Jay Carney expressed disappointment in the first House vote and told reporters the "writing is on the wall" for longtime Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi. Now is not the time to let up, he said.

Much of the House's disapproval of the Libya campaign has been fueled by a belief that President Obama failed to sufficiently consult with Congress before committing to military engagement. Specifically, representatives from both political parties say the administration has violated the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which gives the president 60 days to get congressional approval for sending U.S. forces to war, followed by a 30-day extension to end hostilities.

The combined 90-day period ended last Sunday.

Support for the war has also been further shaken by evidence of several noncombatant deaths caused by recent NATO airstrikes.

The White House says Obama didn't need congressional authorization because U.S. forces are playing only a supporting role in Libya and haven't engaged in what the law defines as hostilities. The president, however, personally overruled contrary legal opinions put forward by both the Pentagon and the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, according to a report published Saturday in The New York Times.

Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said during Friday's debate on the House floor that Obama's authority under the Constitution "does not free the president from accountability to the American people, this Congress or the rule of law."

The War Powers Resolution "is the law of the land and simply cannot be ignored," he said. The GOP-sponsored bill is necessary to "defend the constitutional authority of the legislature" and provides "much-needed accountability."

Some Democrats, however, blasted Republicans, accusing them of playing politics with what they called a critical foreign policy priority.

"This was not handled right" by the White House, said Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas. But the House votes are "nothing but politics," and "I don't want to abandon my friends in the Arab states who are now struggling for democracy."

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday it would be a mistake for Congress to cut funding for U.S. military operations in Libya.

"I think, once we have our forces engaged, to deny them funding would be a mistake," Gates told PBS News. Key American allies -- especially the British, the French and the Italians -- consider Libya a vital interest, and "our alliance with them is a vital interest for us," he said, citing their efforts in Afghanistan.

Gates insisted that progress has been made toward the U.S. goal of ousting Gadhafi.

"Based on everything we see, the government gets shakier by the day," Gates said. "His forces have been significantly diminished. The opposition is expanding the areas under their control."

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met privately with House Democrats on Thursday to urge support for the resolution backing the Libya mission, according to a Democratic source who attended the meeting.

"The bottom line is, whose side are you on?" she said Wednesday. "Are you on Gadhafi's side, or are you on the side of the aspirations of the Libyan people and the international coalition that has been created to support them?"

The allied military effort, which has formal United Nations support, was launched to protect Libyan civilians from violence stemming from a crackdown launched by Gadhafi. Western leaders have made clear, however, that they believe the mission cannot be successfully completed without Gadhafi's ouster.

The White House has promised not to use U.S. ground troops, but bipartisan congressional opposition to the military campaign has nevertheless been mounting over several weeks. In addition to concerns about the War Powers Resolution, traditional anti-war Democrats and fiscally conservative Republicans are worried about the cost of the conflict.

In a recent report on the mission, the administration said the cost of military and humanitarian operations through June 3 was about $800 million. It estimated the total cost through September 30 would be $1.1 billion.

CNN's Dana Bash, Rachel Streitfeld and Deirdre Walsh contributed to this report.

CNN

House weighs cutting off funds for Libya mission (AP)

WASHINGTON – Clearly frustrated with President Barack Obama, Republican leaders are propelling the House toward crucial votes on the U.S. military role in Libya that could embarrass the commander in chief and reverberate in Tripoli and NATO capitals.

"I just believe that because of the president's failure to consult with the Congress, failure to outline for the American people why we were doing this before we engaged in this puts us in the position where we have to defend our responsibility under the Constitution," House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said in advancing two measures.

The House was scheduled to vote Friday on the competing measures: a resolution giving Obama limited authority to continue the American involvement in the NATO-led operation against Moammar Gadhafi's forces and a bill to cut off funds for U.S. military attacks there. The bill would make an exception for search and rescue efforts, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, aerial refueling and operational planning to continue the NATO effort.

"The president has ignored the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution, but he cannot ignore a lack of funding," said Rep. Tom Rooney, R-Fla., sponsor of the bill. "Only Congress has the power to declare war and the power of the purse, and my bill exercises both of those powers by blocking funds for the war in Libya unless the president receives congressional authorization."

House Republicans and Democrats are furious with Obama for failing to seek congressional authorization for the 3-month-old war against Libya, as required under the War Powers Resolution. The 1973 law, often ignored by Republican and Democratic presidents, says the commander in chief must seek congressional consent within 60 days. That deadline has long passed.

Obama stirred congressional unrest last week when he told lawmakers he didn't need authorization because the operation was not full-blown hostilities. NATO commands the operation, but the United States still plays a significant support role that includes aerial refueling of warplanes and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance work as well as drone attacks and bombings.

A New York Times report that said Obama overruled some of his legal advisers further incensed members of Congress.

A coalition of anti-war Democrats and tea party-backed Republicans are expected to defeat the resolution in a repudiation of the president.

"The war in Libya is illegal, unconstitutional and unwarranted. It must end," Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, said.

The fate of the legislation to cut off funds was uncertain.

In a last-ditch effort Thursday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton met with rank-and-file Democrats to explain the mission and discuss the implications if the House votes to cut off funds. The administration requested the closed-door meeting.

Rep. Tim Walz, D-Minn., said Clinton apologized for not coming to Congress earlier. But he said she warned about the implications of a House vote to cut off money.

"The secretary expressed her deep concern that you're probably not on the right track when Gadhafi supports your efforts," Walz said.

Rep. Howard Berman of California, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said such a vote "ensures the failure of the whole mission."

Earlier this week Clinton said lawmakers were free to raise questions, but she asked, "Are you on Gadhafi's side, or are you on the side on the aspirations of the Libyan people and the international coalition that has been bringing them support?"

In the Senate, backers of a resolution to authorize the operation wondered whether the administration had waited too long to address the concerns of House members.

"It's way late," said Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee. "This is one of the reasons why they're having this veritable uprising in the House, because of a lack of communication. And then the icing on the cake was probably for them when he (Obama) said that we're not engaged in hostilities. That obviously is foolishness."

He added, however, "That is not a reason to pass a resolution that would encourage Moammar Gadhafi to stay in power."

Earlier this month, the House voted 268-145 to rebuke Obama for failing to provide a "compelling rationale" for the Libyan mission and for launching U.S. military forces without congressional approval.

Yahoo! News

Italy breaks ranks over NATO's Libya mission (AFP)

TRIPOLI (AFP) – Italy called Wednesday for a halt to Libyan hostilities to allow the delivery of humanitarian aid, as the civilian death toll mounted and state media said NATO was bombing highway traffic checkpoints.

On the diplomatic front, China said it recognises Libya's opposition National Transitional Council (NTC) as an "important dialogue partner."

"We have seen the effects of the crisis and therefore also of NATO action not only in eastern and southwestern regions but also in Tripoli," Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini told a parliamentary committee meeting in Rome.

"I believe an immediate humanitarian suspension of hostilities is required in order to create effective humanitarian corridors," while negotiations should also continue on a more formal ceasefire and peace talks, he said.

"I think this is the most urgent and dramatic point," Frattini continued.

"I think it is legitimate to request ever more detailed information on the results" of the NATO mission, he added, condemning "the dramatic errors that hit civilians, which is clearly not an objective of the NATO mission."

France, which has taken the lead in military operations against Moamer Kadhafi, immediately ruled out any pause in the Libya campaign.

"The coalition and the countries that met as the Abu Dhabi contact group two weeks ago were unanimous on the strategy: we must intensify the pressure on Kadhafi," French foreign ministry spokesman Bernard Valero told reporters.

"Any pause in operations would risk allowing him to play for time and to reorganise. In the end, it would be the civilian population that would suffer from the smallest sign of weakness on our behalf," he said.

NATO has been forced to defend the credibility of its air war after the alliance admitted firing a rogue missile that the Libyan regime says killed nine civilians, including children, in Tripoli.

"I would suggest that our reputation and credibility is unquestionable," said Wing Commander Mike Bracken, the mission's military spokesman.

"What is questionable is the Kadhafi regime's use of human shields, (and) firing missiles from mosques," Bracken told reporters from operation headquarters in Naples, Italy.

The blunder -- an embarrassment for a mission that prides itself on protecting Libya's people from the regime -- came on the heels of a friendly fire incident last week in which a column of rebel vehicles was hit by NATO warplanes.

The outgoing head of the Arab League Amr Mussa too voiced concerns about NATO's bombing campaign, in an interview with a British newspaper on Wednesday.

The veteran Egyptian diplomat, who played a key role in securing Arab support for the UN Security Council Resolution that authorised NATO air strikes, told the Guardian the bombing mission may not be working.

"When I see children being killed, I must have misgivings. That's why I warned about the risk of civilian casualties," he said.

Libyan state television and official news agency JANA meanwhile reported that NATO warplanes had carried out raids on the towns of Khoms and Nalut in western Libya.

NATO targeted two checkpoints in the Khoms region 120 kilometres (75 miles) east of Tripoli, the television report said. It added that the control points were "civilian" intended to "organise traffic movements."

If the strikes were confirmed, it would mean the Western alliance had moved into a new stage of operations in the west of Libya, aiming at checkpoints on the highways leading into the capital Tripoli.

Until now, NATO had limited itself to attacks on military installations and armour.

China meanwhile said it recognised Libya's rebel opposition as an "important dialogue partner", in a further sign of Beijing's willingness to get more deeply engaged in the Libyan conflict.

The praise for Libya's National Transitional Council (NTC) came in a statement by Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi after talks in Beijing earlier in the day with senior rebel leader Mahmud Jibril.

"China views it as an important dialogue partner," Yang said of the NTC, which is based in the eastern Libyan rebel stronghold of Benghazi.

The Chinese foreign minister added that since the council was established, its "representative nature has increased daily and it has gradually become an important domestic political force".

Beijing consistently opposes moves deemed to interfere in the affairs of other countries.

But energy-hungry China has held a number of meetings with Libyan rebels in recent weeks in an apparent sign that it wants a speedy end the conflict in the oil-rich north African state, where it has sizeable economic interests.

Yahoo! News

Obama faces lawsuit over Libya mission

President Barack Obama plans to defend U.S. military involvement in Libya to Congress, the White House says.NEW: Kucinich to the Obama administration: "Tell it to the judge"U.S. officials say the limited U.S. role in Libya falls short of the law's scopeHouse Speaker Boehner warns of a possible War Powers Resolution violation10 House members challenge the Libya mission in court

Washington (CNN) -- A bipartisan group of House members filed a lawsuit Wednesday that challenges U.S. participation in the Libya military mission.

Meanwhile, the White House is sending a report on the mission to Congress on Wednesday in order to answer questions raised by legislators, Press Secretary Jay Carney said.

The administration's report will include a legal analysis for the mission and address a June 3 House resolution that raised questions about the president's goal in Libya, how he hopes to achieve that goal, why he has not sought congressional authorization for involving U.S. troops abroad and how much the conflict will ultimately cost, Carney said.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said in a letter to Obama on Tuesday that the administration could be in violation of the War Powers Resolution if it fails to get congressional authorization by Sunday, which he notes will be the 90th day since the mission began.

The lawsuit announced at a Washington news conference addresses a longstanding dispute between the executive and legislative branches -- meaning the White House and Congress -- over the powers of the president to send forces to war.

"We are intending through our presence and through this lawsuit to correct an imbalance which exists today, to correct a deficiency in the separation of powers, to correct ... and to firmly establish that Congress is a co-equal branch of government and that the founders made it unmistakably clear they did not intend for the war power to be placed in the hands of an executive," said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, an anti-war liberal and one of the 10 legislators filing the lawsuit.

Rep. Tim Johnson, R-Illinois, said the legal issue was whether Obama exceeded his authority in committing U.S. forces to the Libya mission.

"Did he act illegally? The answer is yes," Johnson said.

Carney, however, said Obama acted within his authority as chief executive and noted that the president had limited the U.S. role in the mission from the start.

"We have acted in a manner consistent with the War Powers Resolution," Carney said, adding that the report to Congress would include a legal analysis that would address questions raised by legislators.

In a briefing with journalists on the White House report, senior administration officials said the limited U.S. role in the Libya mission fell short of the definition of engaging in hostilities that is contained in the statute. The officials, who spoke on condition of not being identified, noted that no U.S. troops were on the ground in Libya or involved in sustained fighting there such as exchanging fire with hostile forces.

Kucinich later said the Obama administration now has to make its case in court.

"They can tell it to the judge now," Kucinich said. "They can't claim this isn't a war."

The lawsuit is asking the court to "declare that the war in Libya is illegal and order the White House to stop."

The goal of the administration and legislators who support the Libya mission is approval of a new resolution that backs U.S. participation, which would serve as an equivalent to congressional authorization.

In his letter to Obama, Boehner complained that the administration has failed to address questions about the mission that were in the June 3 House resolution, which set a two-week deadline for a response.

Boehner's letter reiterated the Friday deadline and took the additional step of warning that a failure to respond could violate the War Powers Resolution.

According to Boehner, a 90-day deadline for congressional authorization of the Libya mission expires Sunday.

"It would appear that, in five days, the administration will be in violation of the War Powers Resolution unless it asks for and receives authorization from Congress or withdraws all U.S. troops and resources from the mission," Boehner's letter said.

The White House has previously said it was complying with the War Powers Resolution through frequent briefings on the Libya mission.

Boehner's letter contested that assertion.

"Since the mission began, the administration has provided tactical operational briefings to the House of Representatives, but the White House has systematically avoided requesting a formal authorization for its action," Boehner's letter said. "It has simultaneously sought, however, to portray that its actions are consistent with the War Powers Resolution. The combination of these actions has left many members of Congress, as well as the American people, frustrated by the lack of clarity over the administration's strategic policies, by a refusal to acknowledge and respect the role of the Congress, and by a refusal to comply with the basic tenets of the War Powers Resolution."

Such political wrangling over war powers is common in Washington, with presidents frequently seeking to expand their freedom to commit U.S. forces and Congress battling to exert influence on the process.

Boehner's letter said that, in this case, "the ongoing, deeply divisive debate originated with a lack of genuine consultation prior to commencement of operations and has been further exacerbated by the lack of visibility and leadership from you and your administration."

With his letter, Boehner raised the stakes on an issue that could prove politically embarrassing to Obama, with increasing numbers of Republicans and Democrats opposing the Libya mission.

In announcing the mission in March, Obama said U.S. forces would take the early lead in establishing a no-fly zone over the country in order to enforce a U.N. resolution calling for the protection of Libyan civilians from forces loyal to leader Moammar Gadhafi.

The U.S. forces eventually assumed a supporting role as NATO took over the mission.

Congressional opponents of the mission say that its objective of civilian protection fails to match the stated U.S. goal of Gadhafi's resignation or ouster and that the Libya situation could become a stalemate.

The White House says incremental progress is occurring through increasing diplomatic, political and military pressure on Gadhafi to step down.

In a coincidence of scheduling, Obama and Boehner are set to play golf together for the first time Saturday, a day after Boehner's deadline for information from the administration and the day before he says it could be in violation of the War Powers Resolution.

CNN's Tom Cohen contributed to this report.

CNN

NASA to launch satellite for critical mapping mission

The Aquarius satellite will give researchers more data about climate change.NEW: Aquarius Sea Surface Salinity satellite launched FridayIt will generate maps of sea salt movements to aid the understanding of climate changeProject is a joint effort with the Argentine space agency

Washington (CNN) -- NASA launched a satellite Friday, starting a three-year mission to help better understand climate change.

NASA sent the Aquarius/SAC-D Sea Surface Salinity satellite into orbit from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.

For the next three years, the Aquarius satellite will look back at Earth and generate monthly maps of sea salt movements, data that are crucial to the understanding of global climate change and ocean currents.

The project will give scientists the information they need to better predict El Nino and La Nina tropical climate patterns in the Pacific. Until now, such research has been limited to ship and buoy instrumentation.

The long-term project, which began in 2001, is the culmination of a joint effort between NASA and Argentina's National Space Activities Commission.

Program executive Eric Ianson said the launch "represents a great leap forward for the two agencies and (their) collaborations."

The Delta II rocket carried an Argentine-built satellite with American data-gathering instruments. The mission will also serve as an environmental data-gathering project for Brazil, France, Italy and Canada.

It was delayed once this week because of a guidance computer problem.

The $287 million satellite will provide insights into water circulation and changes around the globe by measuring the microwave energy emitted from the ocean during weekly scans.

The mission begins to fulfill part of President Barack Obama's 2010 pledge to focus NASA more on "science that will garner tangible benefits, helping us to protect our environment for future generations."

Aquarius is the 14th NASA Earth Science satellite in space.

CNN's Veronica Foreman contributed to this report.

CNN

Endeavour completes final mission; one flight left for NASA

Space shuttle Endeavour landed Wednesday morning at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida.Endeavour's 16-day mission took it to the international space stationThe retirement will not end "the human need to explore," says Cmdr. Mark KellyThe shuttle Atlantis is scheduled to take off on NASA's final space shuttle mission on July 8

Kennedy Space Center, Florida (CNN) -- The space shuttle Endeavour landed at Kennedy Space Center in Florida early Wednesday, completing its 25th and final mission -- the next-to-last mission for NASA's 30-year-old space shuttle program.

"Welcome home, Endeavour," Mission Control in Houston said.

The spacecraft touched down at 2:34 a.m. ET at the end of a nearly 16-day mission to the International Space station.

"It's sad to see her land for the last time, but she really has a great legacy," said Cmdr. Mark Kelly after Endeavour rolled to a stop in the darkness of a warm Florida morning

The youngest of the shuttles retires after 25 space flights. During 299 days in space, Endeavour orbited the earth 4,671 times and logged almost 122.9 million miles, NASA said. It first went into service in 1993.

Endeavour unlocked from the International Space Station late Sunday after spending more than 11 days linked to the orbiting laboratory, where the astronauts installed a cosmic ray detector. The $2 billion, 15,000-pound machine is already at work "gathering information that could improve our understanding of the universe," Kelly said.

"The retirement of Endeavour and the shuttle fleet will not end the human need to explore," Kelly said in comments from space that were posted on NASA's website. "It is and always will be part of who we are. The United States will build other spaceships better than those of today. Even if they are years in the future, they will nevertheless increase our knowledge of the world, generate an enormous benefit to the economy and inspire our children."

On July 8, space shuttle Atlantis is to make NASA's final shuttle flight.

Thousands of people turned out Tuesday night at Kennedy Space Center to watch it make the three-mile trip from the Vehicle Assembly Building to the launch pad.

"Look how majestic it looks rolling out to the launch pad," said astronaut Sandy Magnus to reporters. "Look at that and see what we can do when we put our minds to it."

CNN

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Medvedev's Improbable Mission: Mediating Peace with Gaddafi (Time.com)

On Thursday, as NATO war planes prepared fresh strikes against the compound of Muammar Gaddafi, his prime minister, Baghdadi al-Mahmudi, put in an urgent call to Moscow. After months of civil war, he said, Gaddafi was ready to negotiate a ceasefire and he needed Russia to mediate the talks. That same day in the French resort town of Deauville, the French and U.S. presidents, who have been leading the bombing raids against Gaddafi, reportedly came to their Russian counterpart with a similar plea: Help us convince Gaddafi to leave so that a ceasefire can move forward. All the attention had to be flattering, and perhaps a little confusing, for Russian President Dmitri Medvedev. How is it that he has suddenly been pushed into the driver's seat in resolving the Libyan crisis? And more importantly, can he handle the job?

The answer, at best, is maybe. But of all the major powers in the world, Russia is the only one that has carved out a neutral position on Libya, while also taking care to stay involved. In March, it abstained from voting on the United Nations Security Council resolution that allowed the bombing of Libya; and over the past two weeks, Russia has played host to delegations from both the pro- and anti-Gaddafi forces. Neither of those talks in Moscow made much headway, but they did allow Russia to open up a dialogue with both sides - a feat that no one in the West can claim. (See photos of the battle for Libya.)

On May 26, when the leaders of the Group of Eight gathered in France for their annual summit, President Barack Obama reportedly brought up Russia's balancing act during his one-on-one with Medvedev. "After an admission that the conflict is dragging on and the West has severed all contacts with Gaddafi and his circle, it was proposed that Russia step in as a mediator in talks with the Libyan leader," a Russian diplomatic source who attended the meeting told the leading Russian daily Kommersant. The proposed mission, according to the diplomat, would be convincing Gaddafi that the only way he will survive the conflict is by giving up power and leaving Libya for any country he deems safe.

Russia's initial response seems to have been incredulity. "We noted that the solution to the Libya problem that [the Americans] were suggesting does not seem realistic," said the diplomatic source. "We asked them, Do you really believe Gaddafi can be convinced to give everything up?" It was a fair point. The besieged Colonel's rants against the West have evidenced no desire to capitulate.

But the phone call that Libyan Prime Minister Mahmudi made to Moscow on Thursday showed a new readiness, even a desperation, to negotiate. For the first time since the war began, Mahmudi said, in his conversation with the Russian foreign minister, that Gaddafi's regime was ready for unconditional talks with the rebels. After taking a day to think about the offer to mediate the talks, Russia also seemed to change its tone. On Friday, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov became the first Russian official to agree with the West that Gaddafi must give up power, and confirmed that Moscow is ready to broker a deal. "Colonel Gaddafi has deprived himself of legitimacy with his actions," Ryabkov told reporters in Deauville. "We should help him leave." (See "Medvedev's Challenge to Putin: Oh, Never Mind.")

So far, however, Gaddafi's representatives have only offered to take part in a transition of power in Libya that would include constitutional reforms. That has not suited the rebels and their backers in the West, who insist that Gaddafi relinquish power and go into exile unconditionally. So negotiating a deal between them will not be easy, and may require more statecraft than President Medvedev can muster.

In March, his stance on Libya was already undermined by his senior partner, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who second-guessed Medvedev's decision not to veto the U.N. resolution against Gaddafi. Putin called the document "defective and flawed," and Western leaders were left to wonder where Russia really stood on the Libya question.

So Medvedev's sudden eagerness to mediate the conflict looks like a hasty attempt to claw back some foreign policy clout, says Matthew Rojansky, deputy head of the Russia program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. "But it's very difficult to picture Russia steering this ship safely to harbor," Rojansky says. "Gaddafi doesn't have a lot of incentives at this point, and Russia doesn't have a lot of leverage to convince him." (See "Gaddafi's Last Stand.")

It's unclear, for instance, how Russia can guarantee that Gaddafi will not end up at the International Criminal Court in the Hague, whose top prosecutor said this month that he wants the Colonel arrested for crimes against humanity. On this front, the precedent set in 1999 is not likely to help. That was when the Russian envoy Viktor Chernomyrdin, a gifted negotiator, convinced Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosovic to step down in the face of a NATO bombing campaign. When those talks succeeded, Milosevic was put on trial for war crimes in the Hague, where he died in a prison cell in 2006.

On Friday, Medvedev did little to soothe such concerns at the G8's final press conference, where some of his remarks seemed confused. "When it comes to the departure of the current leader of the Libyan revolution, by which I mean, of course, Gaddafi, then in my opinion, I don't think it makes much difference," Medvedev said. To start the peace negotiations, he said he is dispatching Senator Mikhail Margelov, who has been the President's special envoy in Africa for all of nine weeks but, to his credit, speaks Arabic. The envoy's main objective, Medvedev added, would be to hold talks with the rebels in Benghazi and, "if there is a chance," he may visit Tripoli, too.

For its part, the White House said on Friday that it would stay in close touch with Russia as it pursues its conversations the Libyans. They'd better also wish the Russians luck. The U.S. exit strategy out of a potentially protracted war in Libya now seems to wind through Moscow.

See pictures of the rule of Colonel Gaddafi.

See TIME's special report: "The Middle East in Revolt."

View this article on Time.com

Most Popular on Time.com:

Yahoo! News

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Britain ends unpopular Iraq mission

British airmen patrol near the fence at their main base at Basra Airport in southern Iraq in February 2009.Britain withdrawing its 170 troops from the countryBritain's defense secretary says the troops completed their task of training the Iraqi navyAt the height of the war, 46,000 British troops were deployed to Iraq

(CNN) -- Britain was withdrawing its troops Sunday from Iraq, ending a role that began with the 2003 U.S.-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein, British defense officials said.

The announcement that Britain was withdrawing its 170 troops came days earlier by Liam Fox, the defense secretary, who said the troops had completed their mission to train Iraqi naval forces.

"We now look forward to a strong, long-term defense relationship with Iraq," Fox told the House of Commons when he announced Wednesday that British troops would leave the country.

The announcement effectively ended Britain's role in Iraq, a role that was widely unpopular in the United Kingdom. About 179 British troops were killed during operations in Iraq.

Hundreds of thousands took to the streets in Britain when the war began, protesting the deployment of British troops to join then-President George Bush's "Coalition of the Willing." At the height of the war, more than 46,000 British troops were deployed primarily in and around the southern port city of Basra.

In 2009, Prime Minister Gordon Brown ordered an inquiry into the UK's participation in the war.

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair testified during the inquiry that Iraq needed to be confronted over its ambitions to develop weapons of mass destruction.

Britain ended its combat operations in Iraq in 2009 but maintained a small contingent, primarily members of the Royal Navy, to train Iraqi sailors and marines at the southern Iraqi port city of Umm Qasr. The remaining 150 or so military personnel were temporarily withdrawn in July 2009 after the Iraqi parliament failed to pass an agreement for their continued presence.

Britain will leave behind a small contingent to protect its personnel at its embassy in Baghdad. Additionally, Fox said a small number of British troops will continue in a NATO training mission in Iraq.

CNN's Chelsea J. Carter contributed to this report.

CNN Top Stories

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Bin Laden mission carried enormous risk

WASHINGTON (AP) — No guts, no glory.

Navy SEALS conduct a fast-rope insertion demonstration from an MH-60S Sea Hawk helicopter onto a beach overlooking the Chesapeake Bay during a capabilities exercise at Naval Amphibious Base, Little Creek, Va., in 2009.

The nail-biting, 40-minute clandestine operation that resulted in Osama bin Laden's death could have been a calamitous political and military failure; a bloodbath in Pakistan that left U.S. forces and scores of civilians dead or captured by America's most ferocious enemy.

Or, as it happened, it could unfold largely in textbook fashion ? delivering a stunning success for the often maligned intelligence community, a political and national security coup for a struggling president and revenge for Americans still carrying vivid memories of Sept. 11.

By secretly sending a team of special operations forces into an enemy fortress in a suburban neighborhood of a sovereign country, President Obama chose the path of greatest risk, but also greatest reward.

There were so many ways it could have gone wrong.

As U.S. officials evaluated their options, Obama asked for a gut check from top members of his national security team.

The various plans, White House counterterror chief John Brennan said, were "debated across the board and the president wanted to make sure, at the end, that he had the views of all."

The level of risk stretched from moderate to massive.

"When you go into something like this, there are no guarantees," said Dick Couch, a Navy SEAL during the Vietnam War who later worked for the CIA. "There's the fog of war. Things go wrong that you don't really plan or intend."

Bin Laden might not have been there, the commandos could have run into stiff resistance or hidden explosives, or U.S. troops might have been detected by Pakistani forces who could have taken action against them, Couch said in a phone interview Tuesday. "They have to plan ahead and account for as many of these contingencies as possible," he added. "But you can't take all the risk out of it."

An airstrike, like the one that killed al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in an Iraq safe house in June 2006, could be done quickly, from a drone or bomber far away, generating little risk for U.S. troops. In that operation, U.S. special operations forces went in after the F-16 strike and collected documents, electronic storage devices and weapons that were hidden under the floorboards in the building.

But that safe house was in a war zone where U.S. forces where already engaged.

Still, a bombing brings its own shortcomings: a misfire, an aircraft problem, the potential for widespread civilian casualties and difficulty in identifying enemy remains.

Putting troops on the ground in Pakistan was by far the most dangerous option, both militarily and politically.

While an ally, Pakistan is a sovereign nation that has complained bitterly about U.S. drone strikes targeting insurgents within its borders. And Islamabad officials have strongly resisted having U.S. combat troops on Pakistani soil.

Obama knew that anything short of a clean and victorious mission would have dire consequences, further eroding an already tenuous relationship with Pakistan during a critical period of the Afghanistan war. The U.S. needs Pakistan's assistance rooting out terrorists along the border and helping to prevent militants from crossing into Afghanistan as they become more active in the warmer spring weather.

At the same time, a helicopter assault that dropped elite commandos into the bin Laden compound forced them into direct combat, putting American lives in greater danger and presenting a greater risk of aircraft or equipment failures.

It also required exhaustive planning and training, which provided greater chances for information to leak out over the ensuing months, scuttling the mission and sending bin Laden deeper into hiding.

The benefits, however, were too rich to ignore. With a precision assault, there would be much greater certainty they would positively identify bin Laden ? a linchpin for success. It also reduced the risk of mass civilian casualties and dramatically increased the opportunity to gather what officials call a treasure trove of documents and intelligence.

As he reviewed the options, Obama had history to consider. As some of his predecessors can attest, these are the missions that can define a presidency.

President Jimmy Carter's failed re-election bid was blamed in part on the disastrous attempt to rescue American hostages from the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1980. Eight American troops were killed when a special operations aircraft collided with a Navy helicopter at a rendezvous point in the desert on their way to the embassy.

And in the 1993 Battle of Mogadishu, made famous in the movie Black Hawk Down, two helicopters were shot down and 18 American soldiers were killed during a U.S. mission to snatch a Somali clan warlord. The same kind of helicopters were used in the bin Laden raid.

The images of gunmen dragging the bodies of U.S. soldiers through Mogadishu's dusty streets became an icon for those opposed to U.S. involvement overseas. President Bill Clinton ordered a U.S. withdrawal and promised to never again deploy troops unless there was a clear U.S. national interest.

Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.We've updated the Conversation Guidelines. Changes include a brief review of the moderation process and an explanation on how to use the "Report Abuse" button. Read more.

USATODAY.com

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

First Female Air Force Team Completes Mission in Afghanistan

"Maj. Tracy Schmidt, Capt. Leigh Larkin, Maj. Christine Mau and Capt. Jennifer Morton pose for the camera before their mission March 29, 2011, at Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan. Schmidt is a 389gh Expeditionary Fighter Squadron F-15E Strike Eagle pilot, Larkin is a 389th ESF weapons system officer, Mau is a 455th Expeditionary Wing executive officer and F-15 pilot and Morton is a 389th EFS weapon system officer." /

View the Original article