What has three governments and is a failed state? That's right, Libya.
The latest Libyan government is based in a hotel in Tunisia because Libya was deemed too unsafe.
The other two existing parliaments in Tripoli and Tobruk have so far refused to recognize the U.N. creation in Tunis.

The internationally recognised house of representatives meets next Monday to vote on the UN-backed government, with its president, Aguila Saleh, already signalling his opposition. In Tripoli, militias of the general national congress have warned that the Tunis-based cabinet members risk arrest if they set foot in Libya.

Just what Libya needs - more people claiming to be the legitimate government. Surprisingly, it's actually a lot worse than it sounds.

For starters, the new quasi-government is the brain-child of former UN envoy Bernardino Leon. Mr. Leon made quite the scandal when he was caught working for the U.A.E. while he was trying to negotiate a Libyan peace agreement. Why is that a scandal? Because U.A.E. was busy shipping weapons to one of those rival governments, in violation of international law, a transaction that Leon was completely aware of.
The U.N. just ignored this massive conflict of interest and endorsed Leon's plan anyway. What's more, this U.N. government is only on paper at the moment.
So why does it matter? It matters because of this.

Almost before the ink was dry in New York, leaders of Western Governments such as the United Kingdom were asking and answering questions about receiving “approval” from the “new government” to bomb Islamic State militants in Libya.

This laughably phony Libyan "government" wasn't created to make peace in Libya. It was created to justify a western invasion of Libya.
Teddy Roosevelt might blush at this old school imperialism tactic.

The state of Libya since Obama and Hillary helped create regime change there five years ago is "Rule of the Gun".

So will America actually invade Libya? Oh, Hell Yah!

While no decision has been finalized about when the United States and its allies will formally expand action in Libya against the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, administration officials indicated that it might be very soon. A decision will probably come in “weeks” but “not hours,” Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Friday.
“It’s fair to say that we’re looking to take decisive military action against ISIL in conjunction with the political process” in Libya, General Dunford said. “The president has made clear that we have the authority to use military force.”

It's not like this is a secret. We've been planning a military intervention into Libya since at least August.
Still doubt that we're about to invade Libya? It may have already started.

Dozens of British, Russia and American troops have arrived in Libya in support for the weak internationally-recognized government in Tobruk, London-based daily Asharq al-Awsat reported.
The daily also said French troops are expected to arrive soon for the same purpose.
The officers and soldiers are currently stationed in Jamal Abdulnasir military base south of Tobruk where the parliament is holding its sessions in the city.

The Islamic State has been expanding it's Libyan colony all year, and it is now threatening Libya's world-class oil reserves.
If Obama was serious about defeating ISIS he would eventually have to do something about Libya.

The problem is that Libyans don't want us there and when we go where we aren't wanted things can get awkward.

The American Special Operations forces expected a warm welcome when they landed at the Libyan air base where an allied militia was stationed. Instead, armed men from another militia at the base threatened to detain the commandos, forcing the Americans to evacuate.

Meanwhile, Congress is finally moving forward on the AUMF against ISIS, like Obama asked a year ago.
There's just one snag: It isn't the AUMF that Obama had in mind.

The AUMF put for­ward by Mc­Con­nell would not re­strict the pres­id­ent’s use of ground troops, nor have any lim­its re­lated to time or geo­graphy. Nor would it touch on the is­sue of what to do with the 2001 AUMF, which the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion has used to at­tack IS­IS des­pite that au­thor­iz­a­tion’s in­struc­tions to use force against those who planned the 9/11 ter­ror­ist at­tacks. By con­trast, the leg­al au­thor­ity put for­ward by the ad­min­is­tra­tion last Feb­ru­ary wouldn’t au­thor­ize “en­dur­ing of­fens­ive ground com­bat op­er­a­tions” and would have ended three years after en­act­ment, un­less reau­thor­ized.

Basically it's a blank check for war. Anytime, anywhere, forever.
What a wonderful world.

At this point President Obama is simply ignoring all legal restrictions on his war making anyway, but Obama has to at least pretend to care about the law..

And without any authorization, things are getting confusing. Earlier this week, the Wall Street Journal reported that the White House had, for the first time, given the Pentagon legal authority to carry out offensive operations against ISIS in Afghanistan, where its presence is growing. Previously, targets of combat operations had to be shown to have ties to al-Qaida’s remnants in the country. This seems to be skipping a step.

The legal rational for bombing Syria is even more contrived.

Legally, however, Obama’s authority to attack ISIS in Syria is on shaky ground. Under the Constitution, Congress decides if and when the U.S. goes to war. In 2002, it authorized President George W. Bush to attack Iraq. That authorization, broadly interpreted, can be read to include the threat ISIS now poses there. But it doesn’t apply to Syria, at least not easily. And the Obama Administration announced this summer that it was no longer using the 2002 authorization to justify its actions.
But the administration now says it will also rely on Article II of the Constitution as the legal backing for air strikes against Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad’s forces if Assad attacks the rebel groups....
“That means nothing. That’s pretty bad when you have to cite Article II…You have to be more specific than that,” said Louis Fisher, scholar in residence at the Constitution Project and former Congressional Research Service researcher.

If the rule of law still applied to the United States today, this would be a big deal. In fact, it would be a Constitutional Crisis.
Which is ironic because Obama was a lecturer in constitutional law at the University of Chicago, who once said, "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
Good thing for Democrats that we are in a post-rule of law world.