Obama Announces 2013 U.S. Troop Withdrawal At NATO Summit (Videos)

NATO accepts Obama timetable to end war in Afghanistan by 2014

NATO leaders signed off Monday on President Barack Obama's exit strategy from Afghanistan that calls for an end to combat operations next year and the withdrawal of the U.S.-led international military force by the end of 2014.

Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told reporters at the conclusion of a two-day summit of the alliance leaders that the plan calls for handing over security responsibilities to Afghan forces in 2013, then withdrawing foreign forces the following year.

After that, a new and different NATO mission will advise, train and assist the expected 350,000-strong Afghanistan force, Rasmussen said.

The second day of their two-day summit focused on Afghanistan, with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and the heads of other countries contributing to the U.S.-led International Security Assistance Force also in attendance.

Obama wanted NATO to commit to long-range support for Afghanistan, and Rasmussen said the alliance would support Afghan forces after the combat mission ends.

"Today we reaffirmed our strong commitment to support their training, equipping, financing and capability development in the years to come," Rasmussen said, adding it will be a "new mission with a new role for NATO," not "ISAF with a different name."

Rasmussen confirmed that some NATO members have agreed to contribute money for the $4 billion a year needed to help fund the Afghanistan security forces after the NATO mission ends, but said the summit was never intended to secure that funding.

While the Afghanistan force is expected to number 350,000 in 2014, Rasmussen said the size would likely decrease in future years depending on the security situation on the ground and other factors.

He also said he expected an agreement soon for Pakistan to reopen its border with Afghanistan to military shipments of departing NATO forces, which would resolve a sticky issue in planning the withdrawal of foreign forces.

"So far, the closure of the transit routes has not had a major impact on our operations," Rasmussen said, but added the transit routes were very important and that he expected their reopening "in the very near future."

Pakistan closed the ground routes after a NATO airstrike in November killed two dozen of its soldiers. NATO insists the incident was an accident. Obama offered his condolences but refused to apologize.

The United States and Pakistan have not come to an agreement on the price of opening the supply lines, according to senior administration officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

Without a deal, the officials said Obama would not meet with President Asif Ali Zardari at the summit. However, Obama and Zardari had a brief conversation Monday morning on the sidelines of the NATO session, according to two administration officials.

When asked about turning over security responsibility to Afghan forces next year, Rasmussen denied it was an acceleration of the transition, saying the plan all along was to withdraw troops in 2014 after shifting the lead security role to Afghan forces.

"It has been within our road map right from the outset," he said.
Protesters conducted more peaceful demonstrations such as sit-ins Monday after clashes with police on Sunday, the first day of the summit.

Earlier Monday, Obama told the dozens of heads of state in attendance that the goal is to "responsibly bring this war to an end" in the next 19 months.

He cited a recent strategic partnership agreement he signed with Karzai as a step toward ensuring that "as Afghans stand up, they will not stand alone."

Obama made clear Sunday as the summit opened that he expects the NATO nations and their strategic partners to agree to the withdrawal plan, while assuring Karzai that the 28-nation NATO would not abandon the country.

"Just as we have sacrificed together for our common security, we will stand together united in our determination to complete this mission," Obama said at the start of the summit .

Obama and Karzai, who met a day ahead of Monday's NATO talks on Afghanistan, both agreed that the end of the war was close.

Following their meeting, Obama said the transition of the NATO-led force from a combat role to one of support of Afghan forces paints "a vision post-2014 in which we have ended our combat role, the Afghan war as we understand it is over."

Karzai reiterated his commitment to the timetable, "so that Afghanistan is no longer a burden on the shoulder of our friends in the international community, on the shoulders of the United States and our other allies.

"Afghanistan, indeed, Mr. President, as you very rightly put it, is looking forward to an end to this war, and a transformational decade," he said.

Under Obama's plan, reminiscent of the Iraq withdrawal, security for Afghanistan would transition to Afghan forces by the middle of next year. NATO troops would then remain in training and advisory role to help beef up Afghan forces until their withdrawal at the end of 2014, followed by the new mission to train, advise and assist the Afghan forces.

A small contingent of British forces could remain after NATO forces leave in 2014, a senior British official said.

A senior U.S. official said the United Kingdom may keep some troops in Afghanistan post-2014 for counterterrorism purposes. Both officials requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.

"I don't want to understate the challenge that we have ahead of us. The Taliban is a resilient and capable opponent," Marine Gen. John Allen, commander of ISAF troops, said Sunday.

"We fully expect that combat is going to continue" as troops are gradually withdrawn over the next 2 ½ years."

As expected, France's new president, Francois Hollande, announced the withdrawal of French combat troops from Afghanistan by year's end. As part of ISAF, French trainers will remain.

A Taliban spokesman called on NATO nations to follow France's lead.

"We call upon all the other NATO member countries to avoid working for the political interests of American officials and answer the call of your own people by immediately removing all your troops from Afghanistan," Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid said in a statement.



View Larger Map


Sources: CBS News, CNN, Google Maps

"Fair Game!" Obama Challenges Romney's Bain Record & Booker's "Nauseated" Remarks

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Obama: Bain's fair game

President Barack Obama on Monday stood strongly behind his campaign’s attacks on Mitt Romney’s work at Bain Capital, telling reporters in Chicago that his opponent’s business experience is fair game in the race for the White House.
“This is not a distraction. This is what this campaign is going to be about,” the president said at a press conference wrapping up the NATO Summit in his hometown.

“The reason this is relevant to the campaign is because my opponent, Governor Romney, his main calling card for why he thinks he should be president is his business experience,” Obama said. “You know, he’s not going out there touting his experience in Massachusetts. He’s saying, ‘I’m a business guy and I know how to fix it,’ and this is his business.”

The president’s comments came after Cory Booker, the Democratic mayor of Newark, N.J, on Sunday described the Obama campaign’s attacks on Romney’s Bain record as a “distraction from the real issues.”

Booker later said that he was trying to voice his “profound frustration” with negative campaigning but, along with criticisms coming from former Obama car czar Steve Rattner and former Rep. Harold Ford (D-Tenn.), his remarks have been taken as a sign that not all Democrats are satisfied with this Obama campaign tactic.

Obama tried to stress Monday that while there’s nothing wrong with the kind of work Bain Capital does, it’s not necessarily the right background for the president of the United States to have.

“When you’re president — as opposed to the head of a private equity firm — your job is not simply to maximize profits. your job is to figure out how everybody in the country has a fair shot,” he said. “If your main argument for how to grow the economy was ‘You knew how to make a lot of money for investors’ then you’re missing what this job is about. That doesn’t mean you weren’t good at private equity. But that’s not what my job is as president.”

Obama wouldn’t directly say whether Romney was responsible for the job losses of the workers featured in the Obama campaign’s video released last week about a steel company that shuttered years after Bain took it over, after Romney had left his job as CEO of the firm.

“Mr. Romney is responsible for the proposals he’s putting forward for how he says he’s going to fix the economy, and if the main basis for him suggesting he can do a better job is his track record as the head of a private equity firm, then both the upsides and the downsides are worth examining,” the president said.

Obama also spoke about the future of American involvement in Afghanistan and other issues discussed with the NATO members in the two-day conference. Monday evening, he heads to deliver a commencement speech at a Joplin, Mo. high school which was ravaged by tornadoes last year.


Sources: CBS News, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, Politico, The Blaze

"Big Bain Backfire", Romney Campaign Releases Ad With Booker's Words

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Obama: Bain's fair game

President Barack Obama on Monday defended his campaign's attacks on Mitt Romney's business record, denying that they are a distraction or a side issue.

"This is not a distraction. This is what this campaign is going to be about," Obama said at a press conference in Chicago. "Both the upsides and the downsides are worth examining."

Obama's campaign is in the second week of an ad campaign about Mitt Romney's time as a private equity buyout specialist at the helm of the Boston-based consulting firm Bain Capital. Obama's campaign has highlighted layoffs and pension cuts at two firms as an example of Romney's business practices — firms and factories that were shuttered even as Romney's company made a profit.

"My opponent, Gov. Romney, his main calling card for why he should be president is his business experience," Obama said. "When you're president, as opposed to the head of a private equity firm, then your job is not simply to maximize profits."

"So, if your main argument for how to grow the economy was 'I knew how to make a lot of money for investors' then you're missing what this job is about. That doesn't mean you weren't good at private equity. But that's not what my job is as president," Obama said.

Obama repeated a claim that his surrogates have been making, saying that he is not attacking private equity as a practice.

"My view of private equity is that it is set up to maximize profits. And that's a healthy part of the free market. That's part of the role of a lot of business people," Obama said. "I think there are folks who do good work in that area."


Harold Ford: ‘I Agree’ With Cory Booker’s Remarks

Appearing on “Morning Joe,” former Tennessee Rep. Harold Ford (D) said Monday he agrees with Newark, N.J. Mayor Cory Booker, who criticized the Obama campaign’s recent attacks on Mitt Romney’s time with the private equity firm Bain Capital over the weekend.

“I would not have backed off the comments if I were Mayor Booker,” Ford, who ran unsuccessfully for U.S. Senate in 2006, said on the MSNBC program. “The substance of his comments on ‘Meet the Press,’ I agree with the core of it. I would not have backed them out… private equity’s not a bad thing. As a matter of fact, private equity is a good thing in many, many instances.”


Sources: AP, CBS News, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, Politico, Talking Points Memo

Obama's Chicago Headquarters Target Of Molotov Cocktail Attack Plotted By 3 Men; NATO Meeting Protesters

Men accused of plotting attacks around NATO summit

Three Male Activists who traveled to Chicago for a NATO summit were accused Saturday of manufacturing Molotov cocktails in a plot to attack President Barack Obama's campaign headquarters, Mayor Rahm Emanuel's home and other targets.

But defense lawyers shot back that Chicago police had trumped up the charges to frighten peaceful protesters away, telling a judge it was undercover officers known by the activists as "Mo" and "Gloves" who brought the firebombs to a South Side apartment where the men were arrested.

"This is just propaganda to create a climate of fear," Michael Deutsch said. "My clients came to peacefully protest."

On the eve of the summit, the dramatic allegations were reminiscent of previous police actions ahead of major political events, when authorities moved quickly to prevent suspected plots but sometimes quietly dropped the charges later.

Prosecutors said the men were self-described anarchists who boasted weeks earlier about the damage they would do in Chicago, including one who declared, "After NATO, the city will never be the same."

At one point, one of the suspects asked the others if they had ever seen a "cop on fire."

Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy dismissed the idea that the arrests were anything more than an effort to stop "an imminent threat."

"When someone was in the position (of having) Molotov cocktails — that's pretty imminent," he said. "It was not a completed investigation."

The men allegedly bought fuel at a gas station for the makeshift bombs, poured it into beer bottles and cut up bandanas to serve as fuses.

The suspects are Brian Church, 20, of Ft. Lauderdale, Fla.; Jared Chase, 24, of Keene, N.H.; and, Brent Vincent Betterly, 24, of Oakland Park, Fla.

If convicted on all counts — conspiracy to commit terrorism, material support for terrorism and possession of explosives — the men could get up to 85 years in prison.

Outside the courtroom, Deutsch said the two undercover police officers or informants were also arrested during the Wednesday raid, and defense attorneys later lost track of the two.

"We believe this is all a setup and entrapment to the highest degree," Deutsch said.

The suspects were each being held on $1.5 million bond. Six others arrested Wednesday in the raid were released Friday without being charged.

The three who remained in custody apparently came to Chicago late last month to take part in May Day protests. Relatives and acquaintances said the men were wanderers who bounced around as part of the Occupy movement and had driven together from Florida to Chicago, staying with other activists.

Court records indicated no prior violent behavior.

Longtime observers of police tactics said the operation seemed similar to those conducted by authorities in other cities before similarly high-profile events.

For instance, prior to the Republican National Convention in 2008 in St. Paul, Minn., prosecutors charged eight activists who were organizing mass protests with terrorism-related crimes after investigators said they recovered equipment for Molotov cocktails, slingshots with marbles and other items.

The protesters, who became known as the RNC Eight, denied the allegations and accused authorities of stifling dissent. The terrorism charges were later dismissed. Five of the suspects eventually pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges, and three had their cases dismissed altogether.

Molotov cocktails are dangerous weapons, but it "kind of stretches the bounds to define that as terrorism," said Michael Scott, director of the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

He said police have a history of abusing such tactics, sometimes infiltrating purely peaceful protest groups to search for troublemakers.

But if the allegations are true, police were justified in moving quickly to take the men off the streets, even if the terrorism charges don't stick.

Just one week before their arrest, at least two of the suspects were involved in a minor confrontation with police captured on a video that was then posted on YouTube and aired widely by Chicago media, said another defense attorney, Sarah Gelsomino.

The men had been stopped by police after turning their car into a private driveway.

In the video, one officer asks another what Chicago police would have said in 1968 when they clashed with demonstrators at the Democratic National convention.

"Billy club to the ... skull," the officer responds. Another officer says to the men in the car, who the police take as protesters, "We'll come look for you."

Documents filed by prosecutors in support of the charges in Chicago painted an ominous portrait of the men, saying the trio also discussed using swords, hunting bows and knives with brass-knuckle handles in their attacks.

Relatives and acquaintances painted a starkly different picture.

Activist Bill Vassilakis, who said he let the men stay in his apartment, described Betterly as an industrial electrician who had volunteered to help with wiring at The Plant, a former meatpacking facility that has been turned into a food incubator with the city's backing.

"All I can say about that is, if you knew Brent, you would find that to be the most ridiculous thing you've ever heard. He was the most stand-up guy that was staying with me. He and the other guys had done nothing but volunteer their time and energy," he said.

Betterly appears to have a history of minor run-ins with law enforcement.

Earlier this year, he was cited for disorderly intoxication in February in Miami-Dade County, Fla., but the case has been dismissed, according to online court records.

Authorities in Oakland Park, Fla., said Betterly and two other young men walked into a public high school last fall after a night of tequila drinking and took a swim in the pool, according to a report in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel.

They stole fire extinguishers from three school buses, discharged one and smashed a cafeteria window with another. The vandalism caused about $2,000 in damage. Betterly was charged with burglary, theft and criminal mischief, the newspaper said.

Chase grew up in Keene, N.H., and moved to Boston a few years ago before becoming active in the Occupy movement, said his aunt, Barbara Chase of Westmoreland, N.H.

Jared Chase's father, Steve Chase, died about five weeks ago after a long struggle with a disease that left him disabled, Barbara Chase said. The family had been waiting for him to come home before having a funeral.

She said she was stunned to learn of the charges against her nephew.

"That surprised me because he's not that dumb," said Barbara Chase. "He always seemed harmless, but who knows? Outside influences sometimes can sway people to do things that they normally wouldn't do."

Elsewhere around Chicago, demonstrations remained relatively small. Scattered groups of protesters gathered in some neighborhoods, including several hundred who marched to the mayor's house.

Late in the day, another group gathered in the Loop business district and marched down the city's famous Michigan Avenue. Police on horseback and bicycle kept them away from diners at outdoor cafes who ventured downtown despite wide-ranging security precautions.

The largest protests were expected Sunday, when thousands of people were expected to march from a band shell on Lake Michigan to the McCormick Place convention center, where NATO delegates will meet.


View Larger Map


Sources: AP, CBS News, CNN, Google Maps

Karzai's Corruption Costing U.S. Thousands Of Soldiers' Lives & Billions In Foreign Aid (Time To Leave!)

Via a Mandatory Draft I want EVERY Federal Gov't Official including Congress Members & Pentagon Officials, to immediately allow their Adult Sons & Daughters to fight in the Afghan War to help Defend Karzai's (Afghan President) Corrupt Government, then tell me its "Wise Foreign Policy" for U.S. Troops to remain in that region of the world.







Intractable Afghan Graft Hampering U.S. Strategy


For the past few months, possibly the most intriguing poker game in Kabul has been taking place in the sprawling pink sitting room of the man at the center of one of the most public corruption scandals in the world, the near collapse of Kabul Bank.

The players include people tied to President Hamid Karzai’s inner circle, many of whom have profited from the crony capitalism that has come to define Afghanistan’s economic order, and nearly brought down Kabul Bank. The game’s stakes “aren’t too big — a few thousand dollars up or down,” one of the participants said.

Betting thousands of dollars a night in a country where most families live off a few hundred dollars a year would seem like a bad play for Sherkhan Farnood, the founder and former chairman of Kabul Bank, the country’s biggest. His assets are supposed to be frozen, and he is still facing the threat of prosecution over a scandal that could end up costing the Afghan government — and, by extension, the Western countries that pay most of its expenses — almost $900 million, a sum that nearly equals the government’s total annual revenues.

But Mr. Farnood, who in 2008 won about $143,000 at a World Series of Poker event in Europe, appears to know a good wager when he sees one. Despite years of urging and oversight by American advisers, Mr. Karzai’s government has yet to prosecute a high-level corruption case. And now many American officials say that they have little expectation that Mr. Farnood’s case will prove to be the exception — or that Washington will try to do much about it, especially after violent anti-American protests in recent weeks have sowed fresh doubts in the Obama administration over the viability of the mission in Afghanistan.

As Americans pull back from Afghanistan, Mr. Farnood’s case exemplifies how the United States is leaving behind a problem it underwrote over the past decade with tens of billions of dollars of aid and logistical support: a narrow business and political elite defined by its corruption, and despised by most Afghans for it.

The Americans and Afghans blame each other for the problem’s seeming intractability, contributing to the deterioration in relations that now threatens to scuttle talks on the shape of ties between the countries after the NATO combat mission ends in 2014. What is clear is that the pervasive graft has badly undercut the American war strategy, which hinged on building the Karzai administration into a credible alternative to the Taliban.

Still, the Obama administration has concluded that pressing the fight against corruption, as many American officials tried to do in recent years, could further alienate Mr. Karzai and others around him whom Washington is relying on as it tries to manage a graceful drawdown.



“It’s a little late in the game to worry about anticorruption measures because what in the world is the alternative going to be?” said Anthony H. Cordesman, a military analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “If you find people who aren’t corrupt, it is largely because they haven’t had the opportunity.”

Some of the corruption will fade organically, as America and its allies cut back on their aid to Afghanistan, which is likely to have a harsh impact on the Afghan economy, Mr. Cordesman said. Efforts by the American-led coalition to better monitor the billions it spends each year in Afghanistan continue and are having an effect, although it remains slight largely because billions of dollars keep pouring in and are likely to do so for years to come.

The limits of the coalition’s efforts to police its own spending — and the newfound reluctance of top American officials to push back against Afghan intransigence over prosecuting corruption — were laid bare in December when Mr. Karzai’s office demanded that the coalition provide evidence if it wanted the government to prosecute the Afghan Army’s former surgeon general, Gen. Ahmad Zia Yaftali.

Coalition officials had in fact provided the evidence a full year earlier. General Yaftali was suspended in December 2010 after Gen. David H. Petraeus, then the coalition commander, told Mr. Karzai that NATO investigators had found that the Afghan officer had stolen tens of millions of dollars’ worth of drugs from the country’s main military hospital, an institution he ran and where Afghan soldiers regularly died from simple infections because they could not afford to bribe nurses or doctors to treat them.

The running of the hospital, like much of the Afghan Army, is financed by the United States, which last year spent $11.2 billion to pay, train and equip Afghanistan’s security force.

But after the suspension of the politically connected general, the investigation into his conduct remained in limbo — until Mr. Karzai on Dec. 29 unexpectedly demanded to see the evidence he had already seen.

The American officer in charge of the inquiry, Brig. Gen. H. R. McMaster, was furious. The investigation of General Yaftali and the Dawood Military Hospital was one of the major initiatives undertaken by General McMaster’s task force, a high-profile coalition effort set up in 2010 to go after corruption that was being financed by coalition spending. Now it appeared as if an officer who was accused of letting his own soldiers die so he could enrich himself would never be tried.

General McMaster and his staff quickly pulled together their evidence and wrote a statement to counter Mr. Karzai’s demand. Their draft, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, struck both accusatory and conciliatory notes.

It bluntly stated that the coalition had provided the evidence Mr. Karzai was now demanding. It said efforts to investigate had been met with “interference, obstruction, and delay.” It quoted a pledge Mr. Karzai had made in December at an international conference in Germany to end a “culture of impunity.”

The statement was never released. According to two NATO officials, the commander of coalition forces, Gen. John R. Allen, decided there was little to gain in picking a fight with Mr. Karzai over the matter.

A senior coalition officer who is involved with the case said he believed that it would eventually proceed. NATO is focused on preparing Afghan forces to take over the fight against the Taliban, and will continue to try to clamp down on corruption that undermines that goal, the officer said.

The American officials tracking the bank investigation seem similarly uninterested in challenging Afghan authorities over the status of Mr. Farnood and his former partner, Khalilullah Frozi.

Under pressure from the United States and its allies, Afghan authorities arrested both men in June. Kabul Bank was taken over nearly 10 months earlier amid accusations that its owners used it as their personal piggy bank.

Mr. Farnood spent more than $150 million of the bank’s money on villas in Dubai purchased in his own name. Kabul Bank money helped finance shell companies whose main function was to win subcontracts from businesses doing work for the American-led coalition, siphon a slice of the money and then find other subcontractors to do the actual work, American officials have said. Mahmoud Karzai, a brother of the Afghan president, and Abdul Haseen Fahim, a brother of the first vice president, Gen. Muhammad Qasim Fahim, both received interest-free loans so they could buy stakes in the bank.

News of the takeover prompted a run on the bank that almost led to its collapse. Afghanistan’s central bank spent nearly $900 million to keep it afloat, an outlay that the Afghan government, already short of cash, has since had to cover. While some of that money is likely to be recovered, some Western officials concede that donor funds will eventually be needed to close the hole in the Afghan budget, even if Western dollars do not go directly to cover Kabul Bank’s losses.

Deputy Attorney General Rahmatullah Nazari said the authorities this past fall gave permission to let Mr. Farnood and Mr. Frozi out of prison during the daytime so they could help recover assets owed to the bank. Mr. Farnood owes the bank $467 million, he said; Mr. Frozi owes $78 million.

Mr. Frozi has been helpful in tracking down missing assets; Mr. Farnood less so, Mr. Nazari said, although some Western officials disputed that characterization and said it was Mr. Farnood who was being more helpful.

But it is unclear how hard the Afghan government is pushing either man. The villas and a pair of partly constructed office towers in Dubai are still in Mr. Farnood’s name, and Mr. Nazari said the transfer of the property was being held up by a 2 percent tax that the United Arab Emirates levy on such deals. Some Western officials questioned why a routine tax would hold up such an important transaction.

Meanwhile, Mr. Farnood is collecting rent from tenants in some of the villas, Mr. Nazari said.

But, Mr. Nazari insisted, both will be prosecuted once the asset recovery has been completed.

American, European and even some Afghan officials say they doubt that will happen. Despite Mr. Nazari’s claim that both spend their nights in prison, the two have rented separate houses in Kabul and rarely, if ever, return to their cells, said people close to the men.

Mr. Farnood’s spacious house stands behind high walls in Kabul’s most expensive neighborhood, around the corner from the office of the International Monetary Fund, which is overseeing a forensic audit of Kabul Bank.

A pool table, a table for table tennis, a large Samsung flat-screen television and a set of purple faux-leather couches and arm chairs grace the cavernous pink sitting room. A pair of late-model black Toyota Land Cruisers sit in the driveway. The officer from Afghanistan’s National Directorate of Security, the country’s intelligence agency, who mans the front door functions more like a doorman than a guard.

Mr. Farnood lunches regularly at the Kabul Serena Hotel, where the buffet costs about $25 a head. Mr. Frozi has his own spot, Boccaccio, an upscale Italian eatery popular with well-heeled Afghans and foreigners, including American and European diplomats.

Lunching there on afternoon last month with four other men, Mr. Frozi declined to talk to a reporter. He said the American press had “destroyed the bank,” and he dismissed his questioner with a wave of his hand.


View Larger Map


Sources: CBS News, CNN, Fox News, US Navy Seals.com, US State Dept., Wikipedia, Google Maps

Gadhafi Surrounded In Tripoli Claims Minister! Countdown To His Capture & Trial! Loyalists Too!

Libyan Minister: Gaddafi Surrounded

A minister in Libya's National Transitional Council said on Friday rebel forces were surrounding an area of Tripoli where Muammar Gaddafi and his entourage were hiding and were monitoring their presence before attempting to capture them.

"The area where he is now is under siege," Justice Minister Mohammed al-Alagi told Reuters. "The rebels are monitoring the area and they are dealing with it."

Alagi, a lawyer who said he had come to Tripoli to establish the new "legal authority" declined to specify where Gaddafi was.

Other rebel officials have said they believe the fallen strongman has taken refuge in the Abu Salim area in the south of the capital -- an area that saw clashes in recent days.
Rebel fighters have said earlier this week that they thought they had Gaddafi cornered but these reports have turned out to be inaccurate, or at least premature.






Rebels in Libya work to rub out loyalist pockets

Opposition and NATO forces took aim at the Gadhafi regime in Tripoli and Sirte on Friday as rebels worked to consolidate their power across strife-torn Libya.

British warplanes pounded a "large headquarters bunker" overnight in Moammar Gadhafi's hometown of Sirte, the UK Defence Ministry said on Friday. Tornado aircraft fired a salvo of precision-guided missiles into the city, east of Tripoli on the central coast.

The opposition says its forces made late gains on Thursday as it closed in on Sirte, and clashes flared on Friday in that region, considered by fighters as a hot war zone.

Tornado aircraft destroyed one of Gadhafi's "few remaining long range surface to air missile systems, near Al Watiyah, close to the Tunisian border on Thursday, the ministry said.

The ministry said Tornados and Typhoons destroyed a loyalist-held command and control site in the Tripoli area, also on Thursday. Britain is part of NATO's mission to enforce a U.N. Security Council resolution calling for the protection of Libyan people against Gadhafi regime forces.

As for the airport, rebels said they controlled the facility, but were struggling to secure an area east of it controlled by Gadhafi loyalists.

They claim Gadhafi loyalists have been indiscriminately shelling the airport from a civilian village east of the facility in an effort to repel the advance of rebel forces. Rebels say they are cautious in their response to the incoming fire because of the civilian casualties.

One aircraft burned as loyalists resumed mortar and Grad rocket shelling of the airport, according to a CNN team that witnessed the attack.

This comes amid world concerns over revenge killings by rebels and loyalists.

Amnesty International has gathered accounts from survivors of abuse in Zawiya by pro-Gadhafi soldiers and rebel forces. It also issued a report on Friday about the killings of detainees in Tripoli by Gadhafi loyalists.

Evidence emerged of executions in the battle for Tripoli.

A dozen bodies, with their hands bound behind them, were discovered near Gadhafi's compound in Tripoli where fierce fighting erupted Thursday.

Rebels at the scene told CNN they had been executed by Gadhafi's men, but it was not immediately clear. The victims were black Africans, who composed a large part of Gadhafi's army.

The discovery of the bodies came a day after a doctor at a Tripoli hospital told CNN that he had examined a number of dead rebels who appeared to have been executed with a bullet to the head.

On the political front, the opposition National Transitional Council has announced it is moving its political base to Tripoli from its strong in Benghazi in eastern Libya.

Libya's rebel leadership on Friday pleaded urgently with the United States and other countries to unfreeze billions of dollars, saying the funds are vital to establish peace and stability in the nation.

"Our friends throughout the world are talking about the procedures needed to bring back peace and stability," Mahmoud Jibril, a senior NTC leader, told reporters at an international conference in Turkey. But we cannot do that unless we can fulfill our duties."

His call for funds came a day after the U.N. Security Council's sanctions committee approved a U.S. request to free up $1.5 billion of the at least $100 billion in Libyan assets frozen at the start of the war.

The National Transitional Council has been recognized by nations and alliances across the globe. The Peace and Security Council of the African Union failed to do so at a Friday meeting.

Neverthless, the council issued a communique that urged the "formation of an inclusive transitional government."

It called for the "establishment of a constitutional and legislative framework for the democratic transformation of Libya, as well as for support towards the organization of elections and the national reconciliation process."

It encouraged "the Libyan stakeholders to accelerate the process leading to the formation of an all-inclusive transitional government that would be welcome to occupy the seat of Libya in the AU, which represents countries across Africa.


View Larger Map

Sources: Al Jazeera News, CNN, Daily Beast, PBS News, Youtube, Google Maps

Where Is Gadhafi? How Long Can He Hold Out?

Where is Gadhafi and how long can he hold out?


Tripoli may fall; the Libyan regime, collapse. But the rebels say they will not rest until Moammar Gadhafi is captured or killed.

How long they will have to wait for that moment of victory remains as uncertain as ever.

The strongman they are hunting is known to be eccentric, mercurial and, judging from his actions, often disconnected with reality, making it all that more difficult to predict his moves, said John Burns, a New York Times journalist who recently reported from Tripoli.

"It's a mystery," Burns said. "We are all speculating. And we are all speculating about an unpredictable man."

The rebel takeover of Tripoli and most notably, Gadhafi's compound, brought celebratory gunfire and street jubilation that evoked memories of another Arab capital more than seven years ago: Baghdad.

In 2003, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, just like Gadhafi, had vowed to stand with his people. But in the end, both vanished from sight.

Hussein managed to elude capture for eight months after his fall and was eventually discovered hiding in a hole in the ground by U.S. soldiers.

Burns, who covered Hussein and the Iraq war extensively, called both men "killers," but said Hussein was much more calculating. He said Gadhafi was missing an element of rationality.

"The concept that the game is up may not apply with the same kind of rigor and rationality as it might in others," Burns said. "That suggests a propensity for a last-ditch Alamo situation.

"I think he has been delusional for quite a few years and becomes more delusional as this endgame for him develops," Burns said.

At the moment, conjecture trumps evidence as to Gadhafi's whereabouts and how long he will be able to evade rebel fighters.

CNN's Nic Robertson, who also covered the fall of Hussein, said Gadhafi's time is limited and that he would not hold out as long as Hussein did.

Unlike Iraq, where Hussein was overthrown by international forces, a popular uprising led to Gadhafi's predicament. Hussein, said Burns, also found an obvious refuge in what became a sectarian divide in Iraq. Gadhafi does not have that option.

"Most of the country wants him gone," Robertson said. "But even so, it could be weeks."

Former Gadhafi aide Abubaker Saad described a network of bunkers under the Gadhafi compound that could serve as a hideout. But the bunkers have been targets of NATO bombings and it's unlikely Gadhafi would remain there.

Others have suggested that he is hiding in a farm near the airport, waiting to escape. That theory gained ground after a purported Gadhafi audio message aired Wednesday that seemed to have the sound of a squawking chicken in the background.

But Gadhafi has a fear of flying over water and an intense dislike of staying in the upper floors of buildings, according to U.S. diplomatic cables released last year by the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks. So he could instead try to flee by ship from the port.

There has also been talk that Gadhafi may be accepted in another country -- Venezuela, Chad and Algeria are possibilities.

"He could be at the Algerian border," said Fouad Ajami, a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. "Take a look at the neighborhood of this new Libya, free Libya, which is what it is, a free Libya. It has favorable borders -- Tunisia on one side, Egypt on the other, but the Algerians are committed to Moammar Gadhafi.

"He has options," Ajami said. "He could go to Chad where he paid tons of money to the rulers there. I think he is a hunted man. We should see him for what he is, a fugitive from Libyan justice and international justice."

Charles O. Cecil, a former U.S. ambassador to Niger who served as charge d'affaires in Libya from 2006 to 2007, said several African nations may feel beholden to Gadhafi for the aid he has given them. Gadhafi even helped negotiate a peace accord in the Central African Republic.

But given Gadhafi's personality, Cecil was inclined to believe that Gadhafi would remain true to his vow and remain on Libyan soil. Cecil said Gadhafi might find relief in his native Sirte, surrounded by members of his own tribe, the people who have benefited most from his rule.

That's what Hussein did in Iraq. He escaped to his hometown of Tikrit and survived for many months.

"I am wondering how he (Gadhafi) would get there," Cecil said, referring to rebel control of the roads leading to Sirte. "He would almost have to fly."

The head of the World Chess Federation told Russia's Interfax news agency that he spoke by telephone with Gadhafi Tuesday. Kirsan Ilyumzhinov said Gadhafi was "alive and well in Tripoli and not going to leave Libya."

Ilyumzhinov had traveled to Libya to promote chess in schools in June. Burns, the New York Times reporter, took note of Gadhafi's chess match with the Russian visitor unfolding amid NATO bombardment as another example of Gadhafi's delusion.

But perhaps, given the chess match, the Russian knew the truth this week about the Libyan dictator's whereabouts.

"That's more like his personality," Cecil said. "He would choose to be in his own eyes a martyr."

Cecil quoted Welsh poet Dylan Thomas in describing the man who has ruled Libya for more than four decades.

"Do not go gentle into that good night,

Old age should burn and rage at close of day;

Rage, rage against the dying of the light."



View Larger Map

Sources: CNN, Google Maps

GOP's Plan To Sidetrack Obama's Libya Strategy Failed! Obama Was Right!

Obama's Libya Strategy Proves His Critics Wrong


President Obama, when he first announced the United States' intervention in the Libyan revolution, was assailed from all sides for his war plan. Five months ago, both Democrats and Republicans were offering up pointed criticisms for just about every aspect of Obama's decision. Whatever Obama did, there were large numbers of both Republicans and Democrats quite willing to loudly second-guess him. Including Representative Dennis Kucinich (a Democrat), who became the first member of Congress to call for President Obama to be impeached over the Libyan war.

These criticisms were often contradictory (coming from the same people, at times), and were scathing and absolutely relentless: Obama had waited too long, Obama had moved too quickly, Obama should have gotten Congress' approval, Obama shouldn't have gotten the U.N.'s approval, America should just invade in a land war, America should just drop a bomb on Gaddafi and be done with it, the rebels were in reality al Qaeda, why are we intervening in Libya and not elsewhere in the Arab Spring, America can't afford another war, air power alone never wins wars, America will be forced to put "boots on the ground" whether we like it or not, America should be leading the war, Obama is "leading from behind," we're letting the French take control (?!?), Obama is kowtowing to the Arab League, another war in a Muslim country will just serve to inflame the region, what about the War Powers Act, we're going to wind up occupying Libya no matter what happens, the "ragtag" rebels will never win, the best the rebels can hope for will be a stalemate, Libya will end up partitioned with Gaddafi holding on to the west of the country, Gaddafi will unleash international terrorists against us, Obama didn't come home from South America when it began, Obama is "dithering," Obama didn't explain to the American public what was going on, and (an old favorite) America will end up in a quagmire. Back at the beginning of the war, Salon ran an amusing flowchart to track the Republican complaints, which isn't all that far from the reality Obama faced at the time (although the chart is admittedly partisan, because it doesn't address the criticism directed towards the president from his own party).

When Obama first announced his decision to join with N.A.T.O. to intervene in Libya, I wrote an article titled "Obama's Libyan Gamble" which explored what the American military strategy for Libya was going to be. This gamble has now proved successful for the president. At the time, I concluded:

If it works out reasonably well, this could become a model for American involvement in future flareups. If a ruthless tyrant was massacring his own people, then regional military coalitions would be free to call for American action. America, as everyone knows, is very, very good at executing the initial phases of a war. Iraq proved that. But America, also as everyone should have figured out, is also not that good at getting out of such wars. Iraq -- once again -- proves this, too. But if our new model is to limit our major involvement to the opening phases of war, then the responsibility for solving these regional problems would fall to regional organizations with much bigger vested interests in the outcome than the United States.

Of course, this isn't a perfect answer because sometimes regional alliances strong enough to bear this responsibility simply don't exist. Obama's Libyan strategy has yet to play out, and it's impossible at this juncture to see what will happen next. Obama's gamble that America can join in the initial phase of a war and then extricate itself quickly is one of those ideas which sound really good on paper, before reality sinks in when they're actually attempted. Other presidents have had equally cheerful predictions about the length of American military involvement, which later proved to be embarrassingly shortsighted. But, I have to admit, that if the gamble pays off -- if America can prove to the rest of the world that it can lead when asked, but also relinquish control when we're no longer needed -- it could bear fruit in future conflicts of this nature. If it works, people might start speaking of Obama's gamble as the Obama Doctrine.

Looking back, I have to admit that I overstated the case. Barack Obama is anything but "doctrinaire," on pretty much any subject. The Libyan intervention was tailored to a unique situation that may indeed never arise again. The set of circumstances in Libya was (and is) different than in other hotspots in the world right now (such as Syria), making it unlikely that Obama will use the Libyan battle plan again any time soon. So calling it the "Obama Doctrine" was a bit of a stretch, I suppose.

But it cannot be denied that the positive outcome in Libya has validated the way Obama sent America into this conflict. Sure, in the future, the whole Libyan Revolution could become sidetracked in any number of ways -- just because they've taken Tripoli (and even if they soon capture Gaddafi), it doesn't mean that they're going to successfully make the transition to a modern democratic state. There simply are no guarantees of this type in the real world. But that doesn't preclude us from examining the military strategy in its own light, especially when held up against our interventions in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Because the news from Tripoli is so uplifting right now, in other words, it is hard to step back and examine the bigger picture of what America's efforts in Libya may mean for our future involvement in other wars of this nature which may flare up. But it's worth the exercise.

By just about any measure, America's involvement in Libya has been less burdensome to the United States than the last two wars we've fought. For example, six months into Iraq (the same time period that Libya took), 289 American troops had been killed (according to icasualties.org). In addition, 53 coalition troops had died. Six months after N.A.T.O. began air raids on Libya, a total of zero American troops have died, and an additional zero coalition troops have died. Hundreds of American servicemen and servicewomen are still alive today because we did not launch a land invasion of Libya.

It was pointed out just after we began attacking Libya -- with alarm -- that American involvement might cost upwards of one billion dollars. I haven't seen any strict accounting of the war yet, but assuming the estimate was true, it absolutely pales in comparison to the hundreds upon hundreds of billions of dollars (upwards of over a trillion dollars by most estimates) we have so far spent in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is several orders of magnitude of difference, right there.

Our military involvement in Libya was requested by the rebels. This is an important fact which many gloss over. We were not invited in to Afghanistan or Iraq, by any group. Even more important, we never actually "went in" to Libya (at least as the phrase refers to troops on the ground), so we don't have to now "get out" of the country. Ten years on, we still have tens of thousands of soldiers in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The so-called "Pottery Barn" rule ("you broke it, you own it") simply did not apply in Libya, meaning America is not left holding the bag when it comes to the nation-building phase. We can help out, if needed and requested, but the Libyans will be financing their own reconstruction with their abundant petrodollars.

Our international coalition on Libya actually shared the burden with America, as planned. The coalition bore the costs and responsibility for a large part of the mission, instead of mostly being window-dressing for an American army. In fact, this could be the most important comparison of them all, when we look back at the lessons of Libya. Maybe we don't always have to shoulder almost the entire burden of these sorts of wars, in the future. Maybe the "Obama Strategy" will actually become an important military tool for future presidents to use on the international stage, when circumstances allow.

Today, President Obama gave a short address on the Libyan situation. At the end, he spoke directly to the Libyan people themselves:

Your courage and character have been unbreakable in the face of a tyrant. An ocean divides us, but we are joined in the basic human longing for freedom, for justice and for dignity. Your revolution is your own, and your sacrifices have been extraordinary. Now, the Libya that you deserve is within your reach.

The most important takeaway line from this was: "Your revolution is your own." This simply could not be said of what we did in either Afghanistan or Iraq.

The American involvement in Libya was not perfect, but then no war effort can truly claim that distinction. The outcome may not be perfect, either. There are still plenty of valid points of criticism to be made. President Obama's critics will doubtlessly bring up the situation in Syria, Yemen, or Bahrain to make the point that the Obama's Libya strategy is not being used elsewhere, or even that it cannot successfully be used elsewhere. Calling it the "Obama Doctrine" is likely a step too far, I fully admit. It is true that Obama pushed the boundaries of the War Powers Act further than any previous president, but virtually all presidents (of both parties) have pushed these boundaries ever since the Act was passed (and until either Congress or an Oval Office occupant pushes it to the Supreme Court, the constitutionality of the Act itself will have to remain an open question). Obama may have moved too slowly for some at the war's onset, but he also moved too quickly for others. Finally, there are no guarantees that the rebels will form a new Libyan government to America's liking.

Even with all those caveats, however, Obama deserves a victory lap at this point. At the heart of Obama's war plan for Libya was an enormous gamble that could have failed in any number of ways. It didn't. America successfully cleared the skies of Libya, and then "within days, not weeks" we bowed out of the lead role in the fight. The French, the British, and the rest of N.A.T.O. stepped up to the plate and performed admirably well. The American military continued in a support role -- exactly as Obama told us would happen -- and the outcome, at this point in time, has to be judged a clear success.

Plus, Barack Obama is now -- together with the leaders of France, Britain, and the United Nations -- being hailed as liberators of Libya (to use the Bush administration's phrase). All in all, Obama's gamble seems to be paying off exceedingly well. Whether this helps the president or not politically (here at home), the Libyan rebels seem pretty happy with the way the war was fought, and with the way America fought our part of it. And it needs pointing out -- to all of Obama's critics -- that this may be the truest measure of success possible. How long has it been, after all, since America took part in a war where at the end of it throngs of people crowded around a sign thanking us for our efforts?


View Larger Map

Sources: CNN, Huffington Post, MSNBC, Youtube, Google Maps

Qaddafi Vs Obama: Obama Wins! Democracy For Libyans Begins!

Rebels Storm Qaddafi Compound

Rebel fighters on Tuesday, overwhelming what remained of its defenses, running pell-mell through the grounds and ransacking caches of weapons, as the crackle of gunfire and rumble of explosions spread across a confused and wary Libyan capital in spasms of renewed fighting.

Hundreds of rebel fighters on foot and in pickup trucks moved quickly into the Bab al-Aziziya compound in Tripoli, where smoky fires shrouded the palm trees and bullet-scarred multistory buildings of what the rebels have called Colonel Qaddafi’s last hideout. Many of the rebels searched the buildings room by room, but there was no immediate sign that Colonel Qaddafi or any member of his family was there.

Many of the buildings were looted, and rebel fighters could be seen walking around with high-quality advanced machine guns and, in one case, a gold-plated rifle. Some of the looted weapons were still wrapped in plastic.

CNN showed images of fighters emerging from one building carrying what its reporter was told were medical files of the Qaddafi family. Other footage showed rebels commandeering a Qaddafi golf cart, which they hitched to a truck and paraded down a street.

In what could become a defining image of the day, video footage on Al Jazeera showed fighters scrambling to upend one of Colonel Qaddafi’s favorite sculptures: a giant fist crushing an American warplane. Colonel Qaddafi installed the sculpture in front of a house in the compound that was bombed in 1986 on the orders of President Reagan, at a time when Libya was considered a pariah state. The wrecked building became Colonel Qaddafi’s backdrop for major speeches, including his defiant challenge to the rebels at the start of their uprising six months ago.

Despite rebel claims of a new triumph, it was not clear whether they had complete control of the compound — or for that matter, whether the rebel gains in Tripoli were the beginnings of a decisive victory in the conflict — or the start of potentially prolonged street fighting for control of the capital. Overstated claims of advances by the rebels — including the arrests of two Qaddafi sons that later proved false — have not helped their .

The sound of firefights in the compound could be heard for hours after the fighters first broke through. Al Jazeera reported sniper fire inside, and there were reports that one of the network’s employees had been shot.

A spokesman for the Transitional National Council, the rebel government based in the eastern city of Benghazi, where the uprising began, said that the rebels assumed that Colonel Qaddafi was still in Libya. “We believe that he is either in Tripoli or close to Tripoli,” the spokesman, Guma el-Gamaty, told BBC television. “Sooner or later, he will be found, alive and arrested — and hopefully that is the best outcome we want — or if he resists, he will be killed.”

Russian news agencies reported earlier that Colonel Qaddafi had a telephone conversation with the Russian head of the World Chess Federation, Kirsan N. Ilyumzhinov, who is one of Colonel Qaddafi’s eccentric circle of foreign friends. Mr. Ilyumzhinov quoted Colonel Qaddafi as saying that he was alive and well in Tripoli. Colonel Qaddafi’s son Seif al-Islam, who made a surprise appearance on Monday at a hotel with foreign journalists to refute reports of his arrest, also boasted that his father was safe in Tripoli.

They were the first indications of the besieged leader’s location and condition since the rebels swept into Tripoli on Saturday, in what appeared to be a crucial turn in the Libya conflict, the most violent of the Arab spring uprisings.

Video footage and eyewitness reports from elsewhere in Tripoli depicted heavy clashes around the international airport, which the rebels had claimed to control.

NATO officials in Brussels and London said the alliance’s warplanes, which have been helping the rebels, were flying reconnaissance and other missions over Libya.

“Our mission is not over yet,” said Col. Roland Lavoie, a NATO spokesman, at a news conference in Naples, Italy, urging pro-Qaddafi forces to return to their barracks. “Until this is the case we will carry on with our mission.” Asked if the alliance knew where Colonel Qaddafi was, he said: “We don’t know. I don’t have a clue.”

“The situation in Tripoli is still very serious and very dangerous,” Colonel Lavoie said.

He acknowledged that the urban environment in Tripoli, a city of some two million, was “far more complex” for airstrikes than past targets have been. But he said the alliance had precision weapons at its disposal to enforce its United Nations Security Council mandate, which is to protect civilians from attack.

Elsewhere, rebels claimed they had had seized control of Ras Lanuf, an important Mediterranean oil port, and that loyalist soldiers defending it had fled west to Colonel Qaddafi’s home town of Surt, according to news reports from Benghazi. There was no confirmation of the reports about Ras Lanuf, which has changed hands previously in the seesaw pattern of the Libya revolt.

Additionally, Al Arabiya satellite television reported, rebels killed dozens of pro-Qaddafi troops on Tuesday in a convoy from Surt. There was no independent corroboration of the report. The Pentagon reported late on Monday that its warplanes had shot down a Scud missile fired from Surt.

While rebel leaders said on Monday that they were planning for a post-Qaddafi government, the immediate aftermath of the invasion of Tripoli was a vacuum of power: no cohesive rebel government was in place, and remnants of the Qaddafi government were still in evidence.

Such was the uncertainty that the International Organization for Migration in Geneva said it had delayed a seaborne mission to rescue hundreds of foreigners from Tripoli because “security guarantees and assurances are no longer in place,” said Jemini Pandya, a spokeswoman for the organization. A ship that left the eastern port of Benghazi on Monday, bound for Tripoli, would remain at sea until some level of safety for the mission could be assured but would not dock in Tripoli as planned on Tuesday, she said in a telephone interview.

The BBC reported meanwhile that the Qaddafi-controlled Rixos luxury hotel in central Tripoli, where most foreign reporters are based, had also come under attack on Tuesday, sending some reporters to take cover in a basement.

“There are still some pockets of resistance,” the French foreign minister, Alain Juppé, said in a radio interview in Paris, but he said he believed “the fall of Qaddafi is close.” Along with the United States and Britain, France has played a central role in the diplomatic and military campaigns to oust Colonel Qaddafi and Mr. Juppé said those efforts still needed time “to get to the end of this operation.”

On the diplomatic front, Oman, Bahrain and Iraq said on Tuesday that they formally recognized the rebel authorities, following Egypt, which took the same step on Monday, calling the Transitional National Council the “new regime.” Mohammed Amr, Egypt’s foreign minister, said that the council would take over the Libyan Embassy in Cairo, and would assume Libya’s seat on the Arab League, which is based in Cairo.

It was not clear if the renewed fighting was linked to the surprise reappearance of Seif al-Islam el-Qaddafi, whose capture the rebels had trumpeted since Sunday but who walked as a free man to the Rixos Hotel early Tuesday. He boasted to foreign journalists there that his father was safe in Tripoli, his government was still “in control” and that the rebels had been lured into a trap, the BBC and news services reported. The episode raised significant questions about the credibility of rebel leaders, who had claimed to be holding him prisoner.

It was not clear whether he had been in rebel custody and escaped, or was never held at all. Another Qaddafi son, Muhammad, escaped from house arrest on Monday.

The struggle to a impose a new order on the capital presents a crucial test of the rebel leadership’s many pledges to replace Colonel Qaddafi’s bizarre autocracy with the democratic rule of law, and it could have consequences across the country and throughout the Arab world.

Unlike the swift and largely peaceful revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, the Libyan insurrection was the first revolt of the Arab Spring to devolve into a protracted armed struggle, and at times threatened to descend into a civil war of factions and tribes.

A rebel failure to deliver on their promises of justice and reconciliation here in the capital could spur Qaddafi loyalists around Libya to fight on. And an ugly outcome here might discourage strong foreign support for democracy movements elsewhere.

For now, governments throughout the West and the Middle East welcomed the rebels’ successes and pledged to assist them in the transition. The Iraqi government announced Tuesday that it had recognized the Transitional National Council as the legitimate government of Libya. The European Union said on Monday that it had begun planning for a post-Qaddafi era, and Turkey’s foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, flew to Benghazi on Tuesday and met with the rebel leader, Mustafa Abdel-Jalil.


View Larger Map

Sources: CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, Youtube, Google Maps