Chess, Checkers and Libya

Andrew Sullivan is among the brighter lights in the blogosphere. He is always worth reading, even when he’s wrong. If he has a weakness, it is his occasional irrational exuberance. Sometimes, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Still, when it happens, Sully is prone to react to an issue emotionally instead of rationally.

That probably explains his initial post about the UN approval of military action against Qaddafi's armed forces. To wit:

“The United States is, we are informed, about to declare war on a third deeply divided, chaotic and violent Muslim country. The Congress has not voted; the president has not explained; a thorough debate has not taken place. On what basis can a president simply decide such a profound question? Is the UN Secretary-General now more important than the American public or Congress? Even Bush held a vote before the Iraq war. Is Obama proving that, as far as an imperial presidency is concerned, George W. Bush was a weakling?”

I’ll tack on another question: Has Sullivan just jumped the shark? Ah, yep.

Look, Libya is not Iraq. A ground invasion is not being contemplated nor is it authorized by the UN resolution. The polls say most Americans back a no-fly zone or limited intervention. The president has stated his goal unambiguously from the start: Oust Gaddafi and let the Libyan decide their own fate peacefully. Most of the world (including the Arabs) agrees with him. So does most of Congress. Yes, Obama could bring his efforts to a screeching halt to allow a full-blown “Constitutional Convention” to properly debate Libya as Sullivan desires. But at its conclusion, landing the Marines on the shores of Tripoli (i.e., invasion) would be the only option left open to us since Gaddafi would have used the time to annihilate the rebels and consolidate power.

Lastly, Obama is not Bush. Since Obama has the credibility on the world stage Bush never had, he was able to forge a real “coalition of the willing” that includes key EU nations (even France), NATO, the Gulf Cooperation Council and the Arab League all under a broad UN mandate. Obama critics lament his alleged slowness on Libya. In reality, the president marshaled world support in a matter of weeks. As history will note, that is nothing short of miraculous. So was the quick vote in the UN. Even China and Russia got out of the way and simply abstained.

Had Obama listened to the Impose-The-No-Fly-Zone-Now crowd and acted unilaterally, we’d be hamstrung by our own imperial hubris – again. (See Bush, Iraq and the “cakewalk” promise.) Aside from being castigated as infidel Crusaders (thus giving al Qaeda a new opening), we’d be the proud owner of a dysfunctional state of 6.4 million Libyans minus Gaddafi. Plus, we’d be stuck with the entire bill (likely amounting to trillions) for military services rendered and nation building.

Unlike the checkers players, Obama knew from the start that a NFZ – a Western feel-good option with little actual teeth – would not solve the core problem: Removing Gaddafi and giving the Libyan people a shot at creating a more humane government themselves. He knew any military action taken would need to be truly impactful. Doing it with Arab allies would crucially enhance the effect. So Obama took the time (and the relentless criticisms) to recruit help and craft a more rounded strategy to do just that. His pace quickened as events on the ground in Libya deteriorated. Obama now has full international and Arab backing plus a UN mandate allowing “all necessary measures” to protect the Libyan people. Translation: Obama now has the flexibility to go beyond the constraints of a NFZ and use any weapon in his military toolbox to achieve his geo-political objective, overtly or covertly.

And that, friends, is how a master plays chess on the world stage. Whether Obama gets his checkmate in Libya remains to be seen. Much can still go wrong. But I prefer this thoughtful gambit to blindly jumping into Libya, guns blazing, alone. When Sully calms down, I suspect he will ultimately agree.