The Rubik Stratagem

The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg, a conservative, is ambivalent about military action in Libya. But it's a fait accompli. So he hopes for the best.

But this observation is astute:

"The Obama Administration is actually engaged in the Strategy-That-Shall-Not-Be-Named, which is to say, regime change. The Administration, which has done the right thing by intervening, will deny this, of course, and for good political reasons. But this is, nonetheless, the road we're on. Better to acknowledge this openly, and prepare for the changes ahead, then make believe that everything is in the hands of an opposition about which we know very little. If we are helping to rip the lid off of Libya, we should be deeply engaged in figuring out what comes next."

Goldberg makes a fair point. But I believe Obama is better off not making "regime change" an outright policy goal. By not calling this spade a spade and remaining ambiguous, the president preserves diplomatic freedom of action (and Arab support) as he solves the Qaddafian Rubik's Cube. Plus, everyone gets it. From the moment Obama said "he must go," the entire world knows this slow-dance is about ousting the strongman. Yes, shouting "regime change" from the rooftops would harden the nipples of conservatives and gratify their alpha-male egos, but that's all it would do. I imagine Qaddafi would just laugh.

Unsurprisingly, Goldberg agrees with George Will's contention that Obama's strategy is: Create a vacuum, and hope that something good fills it. That's silly, of course. The only vacuum I see is the one devoid of nuanced thinking or ability to cope with complexity on the part of Obama's detractors. Complex problems often require complex strategies to solve them. Such strategies rarely lend themselves simple sound bites that can be spoon-fed to pundits. The Libya intervention, a place where Obama is actually breaking brush, is a case in point.