Obama's 'Gas Stove Gambit'

AS THE NATO coalition ends its second week in Libya, the fog of war is thickening in America. Among pundits, that is. President Obama's strategy is being Folded, Spindled and Mutilated as it runs the gamut of over-analysis. Outright misinterpretations and unrealistic expectations keep sprouting up like Arizona wildflowers. Yes, there are too many cooks in the kitchen, but that is the nature of our democracy. I wouldn't have it any other way.

The always wise Fareed Zakaria noted that in the president's Libya speech "Obama did little to address the central strategic gap in his policy on Libya between its expansive goals — chiefly the ouster of Gaddafi — and its tightly defined military means." That's true, he didn't address it — publicly. Nor should he.

Look, taking out Qaddafi will require some combo of inducements (safe passage, money, etc.), threats (criminal prosecution, covert action), crony buy-offs (see foreign minister defection), military action (broadened airstikes) and rebel assistance (arms, training). To the chagrin of the chest-thumpers, much of this will likely be done indirectly via the allies since America can ill afford to get her hair mussed (if we do, everyone will have a bad hair day). Granted, a presidential PowerPoint presentation detailing "OPERATION GET GADDAFI" would be satisfying. Ditto if FDR had handed over his OPERATION OVERLOAD plans prior to the Normandy landings. But that's a lousy way to fight a war and a perfect one for tying a president's hands. Professor Obama is not conducting a Davos seminar. Lives are at stake.

Zakaria surmises that "there are only two ways to close the gap [between removing Qaddafi and restricting military action] — escalate the means or scale back your goals." That strikes me as a false choice if Zakaria means up the military ante or live with Qaddafi's survival. He further observes: "Washington is now hoping that a bit more military power will dislodge Gaddafi’s regime. My fingers are crossed." So are mine. Yet, Zakaria suggests that this isn't enough. "It would be far more sensible, while hoping for the best, to plan for other likely outcomes," he writes. I'd be stunned if Obama isn't doing just that. It seems likely the rebels will be armed and trained in some fashion depending on how fast Qaddafi regime crumbles (assuming it does). But, more fundamentally, this adventure was never about using the silver bullet that we've always had at our disposal: landing the Marines. What's gotten lost in the debate, I think, is that this was a "Gas Stove Gambit" from the onset. Obama lit the flame under Qaddafi at the simmer setting (i.e., intervention without boots on the ground). Via multiple overt and covert means, Top Chef Obama is now turning up the heat a notch at a time. The question is how long will it take to cook the dictator's goose, assuming it does. Dinner could be ready at any time, but there is neither a recipe nor cookbook for this particular Libyan fowl.

None of this means Mr. Obama's strategies shouldn't be closely scrutinized. By all means, let fly the hounds of inquiry. I, for one, think Obama should unleash Monsieur Sarkozy and let him deploy his French Foreign Legion to arm the rebels, pronto. For the love of God, just do it. But that said, the coalition is only midway through Day 13. To paraphrase a cliché, Tripoli wasn't built in a day. And Top Chef Obama has yet to add all the ingredients to his steaming pot of Qaddafi Stew. Besides - sorry, I can't resist this - a watched pot never boils. So, a little benefit of the doubt and patience might be in order.