« Herb London on Libya: We are at sea as one nation in an international armada that has lost its way | Main | America can learn some lessons on the deficit from Britain »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


In a word, it is called Leadership. Bush was a leader, Obama is not. An effective leader rallys people to his/her cause and in so doing, convinces them to follow. An effective community organizer rallys people to a cause and in so doing nudges them to take action while stepping aside.


Decisiveness? Where's Osama. Why are there 400,000 dead in Darfur.

Mission clarity? The mixed message cited in the article seems to be the Obama Administration's intent. One can debate on if it is a 'better' approach, but it is not the first time nations have used the tactic. Bush had great domestic and international political capital for his wars. Obama does not; different approaches to use of power may be needed.

Congressional leadership? The article cited under this part of your writing states that "for now, neither party is speaking with a single voice."

Embracing America's leadership role? You cite the Arab League as a call to action. Within a day of action, the Arab League along with the African Union condemned Western actions in Libya along. Leaders should not blindly rush into every call and must exercise proper risk management. Not all calls are as they seem.

While America is indisputably the greatest nation in the world, we are still human, and we have finite resources. Effective use of force both hard and soft does not mean using it at every opportunity.
I think back to George Washington, who chose not to support - against great public anger - the French in their revolution against absolute monarchy.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Would you like to write for Platform?

Search ConHome

  • Only search ConHomeUSA