A Lack of Leadership

Critics of America should consider carefully whether they really want what they have wished for: an America more restrained, “back in its box,” deferential to other countries — or, even, less successful.  They are deluding themselves if they think this would make them better off.

– Bronwen Maddox, from In Defense of America

These words were written back during the Bush administration.  Bronwen Maddox, chief foreign commentator for The Times of London, argues that the United States has made some mistakes but, “…after a century of success which was rightly called the American Century, the United States has every reason to advocate the American way.”   The quote above is taken from her chapter entitled “Be Careful What You Wish For”.  She cautions Europe that a United States that puts aside it’s international leadership role is not a benefit to Europe.  French, British, and NATO leaders may be learning this lesson a little late.  Consider these words from a Canadian writer in The Globe and Mail:

 

No one has strong enough reasons of their own for intervening in Libya. The strategic interests of each participant lies elsewhere (although the Europeans worry, as they did in the Balkans, about a flood of unwanted immigrants). Each country is primarily concerned with exposing itself as little as possible to danger or costs of any magnitude. Mr. Obama, David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy are not in strong enough positions at home to weather significant setbacks abroad. The Americans insist that the Europeans will take the lead, as both parties indulge the wishful thinking that the Arabs will. No one will admit to being in charge, nor is there avowed agreement on the goal. Yet, these are the two things that a military campaign needs above all. Mr. Obama needs to see that a president shouldn’t stake his political futures on vacillating allies to whom he’s offered the example of his own irresoluteness.

Europe and the United States appear to be playing hot potato with the leadership role of the current war in Libya.  As of this writing, it looks like NATO and Canada may take over command of the no-fly zone.  Command of “the rest” of the military action is to be handed to someone else.  The only thing we can be sure of is that President Obama has yet to show any real leadership as President.  I think opponents and critics alike would say his most prominent success was getting Obamacare passed.  However, I wouldn’t call that leadership.  With more and more people turning against it every day, and with the political “shellacking” he took in November, passing Obamacare was more like subterfuge than leadership.

However, the President is the commander of our armed forces.  He leads the greatest military on the face of this planet.  Yet, in Libya, president Obama has given the impression that the Europeans drug him into action, kicking and screaming the whole way.  Now that our military is involved, he should stand up and command.  Instead, he appears ready to put the first foreign leader he can find in charge of our military.  Is he afraid voters will call this “Obama’s War”?  Does he simply have no idea what to do?  Does he have something more important to do, like pick his final four bracket?

The President of the United States is often called the “Leader of the Free World”.  President Obama doesn’t seem to have any leadership abilities what so ever.  Worse still, he seems to be running away from any opportunity to display any leadership he may have. The World may have wished for a United States that was less like the world power we were under President George W Bush.   I am not sure the world was ready to get its wish.