The Consequences Of "Leading From Behind."

Michael Oren is a historian whose works by and large have met with the Geek's unqualified approbation.  He is also the current Israeli ambassador in Washington.  Presumably he is good at this job.  One strong indication of his quality of work as well as the sorry state of present day relations between the government of Israel and the Obama administration is an excellent article in Foreign Policy.

The article is a very fine short compass rendition of the American relation with Israel as well as the firm foundations for that relation.  It is nothing less than tragic that the ambassador believed himself compelled to have to write it.  Before the Obama administration there would have been no call for so doing.

The unfortunate reality is that the emerging Obama quasi-doctrine for foreign policy--at least as such obtains in the Mideast, a doctrine labeled "leading from behind" has brought about the necessity of Ambassador Oren's argument.  The same Obama doctrine has resulted in the totality of the mess which constitutes current US policy for the region.  More than that, it has alienated other key allies such as France and the UK as well as perhaps obliging one or both of these countries to deploy ground forces in Libya.

As has been noted many times in this blog, Mr Obama is apparently determined to test whether or not a Great Power can voluntarily resign its status.  Doing so is without historical precedent.  Throughout the sweep of human events, many Great Powers have lost their status through the efforts of other emerging powers or have been dethroned as a consequence of internal collapse, but none have ever simply walked away from it as a voluntary choice.

The approach to the politics of the globe favored by the Nice Young Man From Chicago is one which combines "humility" with a predilection for hectoring of a sermonizing sort.  The "humility" expresses itself in the placing of responsibility for decision making upon international organizations both regional and global.  It is as if the US constantly said to the world, "Well, if you all really, really want us to do something, well, then, we guess, we can go along with it--as long as we are not alone in the job."

What an image!  The US as the most humble and obedient servant of the political will of others, of others in regional or global congress assembled.  Not for us will be the reactionary notion of defining and achieving our national and strategic interests.  No sir, we will meekly seek to submit to the stated will expressed by the consensus or votes of transnational assemblies--that is provided the will is predicated upon ideals we find laudable.

The insect in the Jello of the Obama approach is found in ideals.  The US has ideals, the Obama administration has insisted repeatedly.  To pursue these the US will stand in the background, suitably humble, pressing meekly for decisions on the part of regional and global organs which express our ideals with good effect.  The real key to the notion of "leading from behind" is found in this dynamic--appearing to bow to international will while setting the climate of ideals to which we will bow.

While seeking the shadows in order to be the "hindmost" in international decision making, the administration generally and the president in particular prefers the spotlight.  Standing under the klieg lights, Mr Obama is right at home with his unique brand of hectoring sermon--demands that this leader or that depart the scene without delay, declaring that this or that government's actions are "unacceptable," the general announcement of broad goals with Olympian force.  All of these have been notable during the long days of tumult in the Mideast.

The combination--or more properly, the tension--of ideals based international decision making and absolutist rhetoric have brought about the current strategic and operational dilemma in Libya.  The same duo have resulted in the disconnects  between US actions in Libya, and those not taken in Yemen, Syria, or Bahrain which have resulted in accusations of American hypocrisy.

The fecklessness of NATO in Libya has degraded the credibility of that organization.  At the same time it has added force to the repeated denunciations of the US and NATO being peddled by Vladimir Putin.  It is scarcely necessary to point out that both would have been obviated by the US having acted like the Great Power, taking one or the other of the two top options: stay out or go all the way in.

Had the US done the second--gone all the way in with both air and ground forces in a short duration mission of regime removal only--it could be argued that Syria would have been far more circumspect in its dealing with demonstrators and far more open to the bribe and reform concept favored by the Saudis.  Had the US taken the first of the two options--the stay out option using as its reason the absence of any compelling national or strategic interest, the revolt would have been crushed long ago, probably at a lower overall body count than will prove to be the case when the current fracas is completed.

Either option would have been suitable for the US as a Great Power.  Even the use of a Security Council resolution is completely in keeping with past American Great Power behavior.  However, the present bastard child of "leading from behind" is not befitting of a Great Power.  It is in keeping with the Obama record of refusing to take a public lead, which is consistent over time.  It is keeping with the variable stances taken by Mr Obama in Egypt and Tunisia.  It is in keeping with his long standing practice of trivializing allies while ineffectually genuflecting to assorted adversaries, particularly those of a Muslim majority nature.

Of all the people on the planet least likely to be impressed by a posture of humility and mildness none excel Muslims, particularly Arab Muslims.  Strength acts like strength.  The strong decide--and act on the decision rapidly and without either second thoughts or regrets.  Only weakness is humble.  Only weakness is indecisive.  Only weakness talks tough but fails to lead from the front.

The one time anti-Vietnam War protester and now Secretary of State may sincerely believe that the US should be a less-than-great power.  In  this she may be joined by the president who, after all, was nurtured by a mother who was an early member of the blame-America-First school of thought and educated in academic environments almost totally populated by members of the same school.  Both Mr Obama and Ms Clinton may really, really believe that the day of the nation-state is over and the globalist world is upon us.  Both may rue any American exceptionalism or any American will and ability to act decisively.  But, their view is not one shared by the majority of people--or governments--in the world today.

It is this disconnect between members of the American elite such as Mr Obama and Ms Clinton on the one hand and the majority of folk on the other which make it impossible for the US to resign its Great Power status.  To put it bluntly, governments and people alike expect the US to lead--from the front--to lead as a Great Power.  We and our government are expected to take a clear stand and stick to it.  Then there is a fixed point in favor or opposition of which other states can react.

While the US cannot do everything--even though quite a few people around the world think that we can--it is imperative for the stability and well being of the world that we do some things, things which are in our clear and demonstrable national interest.  We are expected to make decisions and abide by them for more than a single news cycle.  We are expected to be and act like a Great Power and not even the most well meaning of the Lofty Thinking people behind "lead from behind" can change that.