Predicting from the get-go that limited Western involvement in the Libya conflict would lead to a “stalemate,” hawkish right-wing commentators have urged the Obama administration to do more to ensure a rebel victory that ousts eccentric dictator Muammar Qaddafi. Many neoconservative pundits and their close allies in Congress have called for arming the rebels.

France, for its part, took the step of unilaterally providing arms even as NATO-ally Britain refused to do so because of questions over the move’s legality. The U.S. has stated that it remains open to the possibility, but no reports have surfaced indicating the rebels are receiving arms from America.

An article today in the Washington post suggests, however, that the predictions of a stalemate and the need to arm rebels may have been premature:

On Wednesday, the rebels claimed a new victory in a march toward the capital that, in recent weeks, has won them tanks, rocket launchers and an large ammunition dump seized from Gaddafi’s military.

In addition to this, the Libyan rebel forces have also been building their own arms. In short: the rebels appear to be arming themselves just fine.

Little is known about the rebels themselves, and arming them could be fraught with pitfalls. Consider New Yorker writer Steve Coll’s assessment at the outset of the conflict, which still rings true today, that the rebels’ “principles, capacity, training, discipline, and understanding of international human-rights norms seem so doubtful.”

While we don’t know that arming the rebels would ensure a decisive victory, we do know that when the civil war ends — as we hope it does — Libya will likely suffer many of the same consequences as other unstable post-conflict situations awash with guns.

Early on in the conflict, urging restraint in arming Libyan rebels, Diana Weuger, who blogs about small arms, wrote in the Atlantic:

Even if we could collect most of what we gave out — which we can’t — a scant handful of high-powered weapons in the hands of bad actors can be disastrous in a place where government control is weak. It doesn’t take much firepower to destabilize an already fragile society.

While both sides of the issue have supporting arguments, the rebels’ ingenuity and battlefield captures may obviate this difficult decision for U.S. policy makers.

The Obama administration’s transfer of a Somalian terrorism suspect to New York for trial in civilian courts after two months of secret detention and interrogation aboard a naval ship brought down a harsh conservative response. Among the chief critics, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said the administration was not doing “what’s best for the country.”

On CNN, Graham laid out a case for permanent detention without trial in order to maintain what sounds like a never-ending interrogation. “You capture people to keep them off the battlefield and gather intelligence, and criminal prosecutions stop the intelligence gathering process,” he said, adding, “I am fighting a war, and in war you don’t capture people for the purpose of prosecution.” Graham said he would rather see terrorism suspects sent to the controversial prison at the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba:

The last thing I’m worried about is prosecuting enemy fighters. I want to find out what they know about the enemy, what intelligence value do they have to the United States?

Having people on ships has never been used in warfare before in terms of prisons. He should have been sent to Guantanamo Bay and held as an enemy combatant slowly, methodically, lawfully interrogated.

Watch the video:

Graham’s argument evades the biggest lightning rod issue in the debate — whether to try suspects in civilian or military courts — and seems to simply call for them to be perpetually questioned about what they know.

A Bush administration official, though, noted in comments to the New York Times that a mix of custody and prosecution tactics helps to keep options available for various cases that may arise:

Kenneth L. Wainstein, who led the Justice Department’s national security division during the Bush administration, praised the Obama administration’s handling of the Warsame case, saying it showed the value of allowing the executive branch flexibility between using the military and criminal justice systems.

“From the government’s perspective, it’s better to maintain options for custody and prosecution and in each case to select that option that best fits the needs of a particular case,” Mr. Wainstein said.

While Graham did pay lip service to the notion of civilian trials — “I’m okay with using federal courts in some terrorist cases” — one wonders in which cases, if any, he would think more interrogations and more intelligence extraction were not necessary and prosecution in either military or civilian realms could proceed.

House Democrats recently made a small attempt at trying to find savings in the federal budget by cutting $120 million from the Pentagon’s $320 million budget for military bands. However, House Republicans yesterday approved a measure to strip that provision from the defense appropriations bill.

Rep. John Carter (R-TX), the measure’s sponsor, said yesterday on the House floor that trimming the band budget was a “tragedy” because military bands “are an integral part to the patriotism that keeps our soldiers hearts beating fast.”

Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN), who sponsored the measure to cut the band funding, and Rep. Jarold Nadler (D-NY) said the money could be used to feed low-income Americans. “I love military bands,” Nadler said, “but people have to eat“:

McCOLLUM: At a time when we are cutting back on WIC, which is a suppliments for children. At a time when we’re cutting back on education and health care expenses, I kind of felt I had a duty as an appropriator to look at oppporuntiees in which we could cut back on spending. […]

NADLER: Over the break we just had I went to a food pantry operated by a church in Coney Island. There was a line out the door about 70 or 80 people and they were giving food packets 3 days out of every month. Three days out of every month to try to figure out how to scrounge enough money to give food packets 4 days out of every month and of course we are cutting the budget for women infants and children…we’re cutting the budget for food stamps. We can maintain the military bands and not expand them. We have to keep this in perspective. […] I love military bands, but people have to eat.

Watch it:

Carter suggested that McCollum and the Democrats wanted to eliminate military bands entirely but that’s not the case. McCollum’s measure would still leave a $200 million budget for the bands and save $120 million.

Based on figures provided by CAP’s Half in Ten project, that $120 million could provide monies to fund crucial food assistance programs the GOP already has on the chopping block, such as the Commodity Supplemental Food Program as well as the Emergency Food Assistance Program. As ThinkProgress’s Pat Garofalo noted, “The CSFP provides food assistance to 600,000 low-income families every month, 96 percent of whom are seniors, while the TEFAP ‘provides our nation’s emergency food bank network with food commodities and storage and distribution support.’”

Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s recent speech at the Council on Foreign Relations led many pundits to describe him as the most hawkish, if not neoconservative, candidate in the GOP primary field. But discussion of his foreign policy stance would not be complete without a close examination of the lucrative lobbying, for both domestic and foreign clients, undertaken by his campaign co-chair and senior foreign policy adviser Vin Weber.

Weber, who supported the campaigns of the neoconservative Project For the New American Century and served in Congress from 1981 to 1993, is the CEO and managing partner of Clark & Weinstock, a “strategic advice and consulting” firm whose client list includes, or has included Hyundai Motor Co., Goldman Sachs, BNP Paribas, American International Group, Gazprom, and JP Morgan Chase & Co.

But Vin Weber’s lobbying expertise isn’t limited to private companies. Clark & Weinstock also represented the interests of Morocco, Greece, the Iraqi Governing Council, Panama, and the United Arab Emirates.

In his January 18, 2005 “Proposal For Representation of United Arab Emirates” (PDF), Weber promised to:

Enhance the reputation and understanding of the UAE as a U.S. strategic ally through major media and other opinion-makers, based mainly in New York and Washington.

Weber advocated portraying the UAE as a U.S. ally in combating terrorism and an observer of human rights, and boasts of his close relationship with DC think tanks. In a section titled “C&W’s Approach,” he writes:

In the area of foreign affairs, we would want to reach out to the Council on Foreign Relations, American Enterprise Institute, The Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Brookings Institution, the Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies, among others. These are all groups with impecable reputations. Working with them goes well beyond writing a check — if that is even part of the relationship.

And he advises the UAE to “avoid the costly and impactless advertising purchased by other nations” and establish direct relationships with members of the media. Weber suggests holding “message-delivering” meetings with editorial boards, columnists, producers, and news people. Weber said his services would run the UAE $65,000 per month. (His representation of the UAE appears have been terminated on March 30, 2007.)

Weber’s understanding of Washington’s foreign policy circles and the importance of influencing editorial boards is a reflection of his Washington insider status, which, no doubt, played no small role in arranging Pawlenty’s recent speech at the Council on Foreign Relations (Weber sits on the Council’s board). While Weber and Pawlenty’s foreign policy positions are often in line with the more militarist, neoconservative, wing of the GOP, Weber clearly knows that in Washington you shouldn’t put all your eggs in one basket. In 2010, his campaign contributions showed a long list of Republican congressional candidates including Tim Pawlenty’s GOP primary opponent, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN).