13. Obama's Words: A Cost Analysis

Start with silence. What does President Obama lose if he says nothing to support the rebels in Libya? Favor with all the rebels in other Arab countries. Something for them to associate with the U.S. backing of dictators. If the rebels represent the wave of the future he falls behind it.

What did he lose with his first firm statement of support, "Muammar Qaddafi must leave" (NYT, 2-26)? His chance to remain completely free of commitment, which in the end could mean another casualty-producing engagement abroad. To avoid losing that chance now he'd have to change his view, in which case he'd be called a "flip-flopper" and lose points to the firm and decisive party.

What did he gain by later changing the wording of his statement, "It's our policy that Qadhafi needs to go" (NYT 3-21)? A chance at a point-saving wiggle. "Needs to" can be represented as wise observation on the head-of-state job. Or simple advice. "What you need to do at this point, Muammar..." Except that he stated it as "policy," which may have lost him as many points with the casualty-fearing party (not to mention the clarity party) as it gained him with the rebels (not to mention the firm-and-decisive party). But he must have seen where "must" was taking him.

The word market has this in common with the stock market: events often determine point-loss. The Libyan revolution could fail. There could be a string of failures. The wave he strained to catch could turn out to be a wavelet. Or, maybe worse, a wave not of pro-democratic forces but of pro-my-tribe forces. Going long on "policy" and "must" could lose him a bundle.

You can't end there, though, smart analysts. You have to go back to the cost of silence. Picture a world watching people suffer agonies they know President Obama, more than any leader in the world, had the power to prevent. Though with some the sympathy they feel might be tribal (my blood, my kind of people, my democracy-lovers), and therefore suspect as, historically, a leading motive for military aggression, with many it will be just human sympathy — as it was among watchers of Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Rwanda, and Darfur. Whichever, Obama (or his advisers) have to factor it in. And, unlike us analysts, do it bang, in the moment of choosing a word. Only the most inhuman analyst could fail to sympathize.