Leading from behind creates vacuum. The Obama theory of leadership falls apart.

PJ Media has a pretty good take on it. I’ll let them have the floor.  Toward the end of the article the point is made. It starts out talking about the growth of ISIS and how “backing them” was a bad idea.

Poole cites a litany of sources to suggest that the boundary between the FSA and ISIS was a nebulous one. He adds, “As if more evidence were needed, it should be noted that American journalist James Foley, who was beheaded by ISIS several weeks ago, reportedly came into ISIS custody when the FSA-aligned Dawood Brigade that kidnapped and held Foley pledged allegiance to ISIS and delivered him to ISIS as a token of their submission.”

However that may be, it’s simple-minded concepts like “enemy” that are the problem. Poole simply cannot think except in these categories [irony alert]. Now in wartime, alliances of convenience and games of double-cross are unavoidable. Factions often enter into temporary arrangements with people they will later fight.   Yet Poole is right to observe  the essential shapelessness of the administration’s policy. He can’t tell Who’s On First and lights on the problem that neither Drum nor Beauchamp can come to grips with.

When you lead from the front, you control the coalition. When you lead from behind, the coalition controls you. This indecision can be disguised under the pose of “sophistication” or “nuance,” where you claim to adapt your behavior to the “context.” But it is really a euphemism for spinelessness. When you’re not in charge, someone else is.  Since Obama has declined to take charge, someone else has. Because in the last analysis, no game theoretic and certainly no war can have meaning unless it defines at least two terms: us and them.

This explains why everything is so confusing. Why nothing makes sense to lesser mortals.  Without a course of his own to steer, Obama’s ship of state seems blown this way and that by every puff of wind.  Don’t worry that he’s relinquished the stick and rudder of the airplane to the foe, because he has the trim wheel firmly in hand.  Yet if you can’t explain policy even to your supporters, there’s a good chances the policy is actually inexplicable. This is a possibility Obama’s most ardent supporters cannot admit. It is pitiful to watch them reduced to deciphering hieroglyphics on a wall. They’ll be damned if they can understand it, but assume it says something profound.

 

And that is about it.  America meddles in other people’s problems because we know sooner or later that problem will appear at our doorstep.  When we try to influence the outcome it may not always work out, but the justification for it is clear.  We want to make sure everything is running smoothly for everyone- except the bad guys.  The “us vs them” deal.  It is a good concept, one lost on people trained to hate America like Obama and Powers.  Messy and inefficient, sure. But at least we control the events at some level, not like what we’ve see today.

There is a movie out there called “The Good Shepard.” There is a scene in it where Joe Pesci’s character complains to Matt Damon that he was the people who made big wars.  Damon’s answer was “We make sure the wars are small ones.”

In a sense, that was America is all about. We can’t stop all evil, but we can stop it when it gets out of hand.  If only the Left in America accepted that role, and the Right knew where the line was between helping and hindering.

But all things considered, I’ll take us fumbling around doing our best against letting the evil run rampant.

 

 

 

This entry was posted in politics and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply