UK: Even with the Senate's March 1st unanamous vote for intervention, many US lawmakers unhappy with intervention

The Guardian

US politicians unhappy with Libya policy despite PR offensive

Briefings from Hillary Clinton and other officials fail to satisfy Congressional critics who want more detail on costs and aims

A private briefing on the US's role in Libya from senior US officials – including secretary of state Hillary Clinton and defence secretary Robert Gates – failed to satisfy critics in Congress, complaining that the administration remained vague about its plans and aims.

Others said after the closed-door meeting that the White House showed no interest in seeking congressional backing for the US military action in Libya, despite the mounting cost and open-ended commitment.

Asked if the president needed Congressional approval for its use of the military – under the terms of the constitution and the War Powers Act – Hillary Clinton is said to have replied that the administration's lawyers didn't think it was necessary, and that the administration had no plans to do so.

Members of the House of Representatives also said they were not told anything about the president's order to allow covert action in Libya – as news of the order was broken by Reuters – during the meeting, which included Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, and James Clapper, director of national intelligence, who compared the rebel forces to a "pick-up basketball team".

Dan Burton, a Republican member of the House foreign affairs committee, wasn't reassured after the briefing.

"[If] we get rid of Gaddafi, who's going to lead? Who's going to be in charge over there? Is it going to be people who have been against us from the outset? Are we supporting people like the Muslim Brotherhood or al-Qaida or the Taliban?" Burton told journalists.

Despite persistent questions from the politicians, the officials refused to say when a decision to supply arms to the anti-Gaddafi forces might be made.

Adam Smith, a Democratic congressman from Washington and a member of the House armed services committee, said the briefing did not contain much information about the future in Libya.

"The main question I have is going forward, do we arm the rebels, what happens if Gaddafi holds on, what is our next move," Smith told the Associated Press. "I think we have to figure out who exactly we would be arming. There are a lot of different rebel groups. I think we need greater intelligence on who is on the ground."

Earl Blumenauer, a Democratic representative from Oregon, said the meeting was told that the military action would cost the US about $40m a month, on top of the $550m the US has spent so far, but could go higher.

"They're absolutely committed to keeping the US role limited. Nobody is making guarantees we'll be out in two weeks," Blumenauer said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2011/mar/31/congress-libya-clinton-military-gaddafi