Leaderless

I once asked, “What if Obama can’t lead?” The answer after Paris is painful.

President Barack Obama pauses during a news conference in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
AP Photo/Susan Walsh
Ron Fournier
Add to Briefcase
Ron Fournier
Nov. 23, 2015, 8:42 a.m.

In his mem­oir, Le­on Pan­etta ar­gued that for all of Barack Obama’s strengths, he is miss­ing an es­sen­tial in­gredi­ent of lead­er­ship. He lacks “fire,” wrote Obama’s former CIA dir­ect­or and Pentagon chief. “The pres­id­ent re­lies on the lo­gic of a law pro­fess­or rather than the pas­sion of a lead­er.”

Obama has proved Pan­etta right again and again dur­ing his pres­id­ency, but nev­er more dan­ger­ously so than with his shoulder-shrug ap­proach to IS­IS. Obama called it a “J.V. team” be­fore it star­ted be­head­ing Amer­ic­ans. He said it was “con­tained” be­fore it at­tacked Par­is. Now he’s call­ing it “a bunch of killers with good so­cial me­dia.

That’s how you de­scribe a street gang—a bunch of killers with good so­cial me­dia. The Is­lam­ic State is no street gang.

Ob­ject­ive ob­serv­ers from across the polit­ic­al spec­trum took ex­cep­tion to Obama’s tone. This from Frank Bruni, a lib­er­al-minded New York Times colum­nist:

He was at his worst just after the Par­is at­tacks, when he com­mu­nic­ated as much ir­rit­a­tion with the second-guess­ing of his stew­ard­ship as he did out­rage over Par­is and de­term­in­a­tion to des­troy the Is­lam­ic State, or IS­IS.

He owed us something dif­fer­ent, something more. He’d just said, the day be­fore Par­is, that IS­IS was con­tained and that it was weak­en­ing, so there was an onus on him to make abund­antly clear that he grasped the mag­nitude of the threat and was in­tensely fo­cused on it.

From Obama we needed fire. In­stead we got em­bers, along with the un-pres­id­en­tial por­tray­al of Re­pub­lic­ans as sniv­el­ing wimps whose fears about refugees were akin to their com­plaints about tough de­bate ques­tions.

There it is again—“from Obama we needed fire.”

The man who so aptly dia­gnosed Obama’s ton­al weak­ness, Le­on Pan­etta, ap­peared on Meet the Press on Sunday to de­mand more lead­er­ship against IS­IS. This time, he stuck to sub­stance—and was no less dev­ast­at­ing.

“I think the U.S. has to lead in this ef­fort be­cause what we’ve learned a long time ago is that if the United States does not lead, nobody else will,” Pan­etta said. He blamed Obama for un­der-serving his prom­ise to dis­rupt and de­feat IS­IS. “I think that the re­sources ap­plied to that mis­sion, frankly, have not been suf­fi­cient to con­front that.”

Pan­etta is not alone among Demo­crats wor­ried about Obama’s ap­proach. Lead­ing Demo­crat­ic Sen­at­or Di­anne Fein­stein told Face the Na­tion that the United States is not do­ing enough to fight the Is­lam­ic State.

“We need to be ag­gress­ive,” she said. “Now.”

Per­son­ally, I’m no hawk. I’m not con­vinced the United States needs more ground troops in the Middle East, cer­tainly not without a rad­ic­al re­think­ing of how the war against IS­IS would re­quire shared sac­ri­fice. I am sym­path­et­ic to the fact that Obama faces no easy op­tions after in­her­it­ing Pres­id­ent Bush’s ill-con­ceived war in Ir­aq. And I’ve got ab­so­lutely no pa­tience for the GOP pres­id­en­tial field’s hy­per­bol­ic, dis­hon­est, and big­oted rhet­or­ic.

But there is only one com­mand­er-in-chief, and ours is stub­bornly cling­ing to a strategy against IS­IS that lacks clar­ity, cre­ativ­ity, and ur­gency. There is only one pres­id­ent, and ours doesn’t seem to know how to rally us to a com­mon cause.

Look at this Twit­ter feed from Ron Klain, a lead­ing Demo­crat­ic con­sult­ant who served as Obama’s Ebola czar. He re­calls the ir­ra­tion­al, polit­ic­ally charged calls to close U.S. bor­ders to people from na­tions stricken by the dis­ease—a pan­ic not un­like the one over Syr­i­an refugees today. “Ebola ex­per­i­ence of­fers three les­sons for man­aging fears,” Klain writes.

1. Ac­know­ledge and ad­dress the pub­lic’s fear. Don’t dis­miss it as il­le­git­im­ate. “That only ex­acer­bates fears and fuels doubts about lead­ers’ candor.”

2. Ex­plain the dangers of “giv­ing in­to fears.” In­ac­tion is ris­ki­er than ac­tion.

3. “Show that gov­ern­ment has a plan to man­age the risk—not ig­nor­ing the risk, but tak­ing act­ive, ser­i­ous steps to re­duce it.”

Klain didn’t say this but I will: On IS­IS, Obama breaks every rule. He min­im­izes the threat and dis­misses our fears, which raises doubts about his candor and cap­ab­il­ity. An over­whelm­ing ma­jor­ity of Amer­ic­ans dis­ap­prove of his hand­ling of IS­IS, a new poll shows, and 81 per­cent think IS­IS will strike the United States.

In Ju­ly 2013, six months in­to his second term, I wrote a column that ques­tioned wheth­er Obama would ful­fill his enorm­ous po­ten­tial, wheth­er he even cared any­more about his prom­ises to change Wash­ing­ton, wheth­er he could write the mod­ern rules of the pres­id­ency and build a new bully pul­pit. I asked, “What if Obama can’t lead?”

I now have my an­swer.

What We're Following See More »
NEVER TRUMP
USA Today Weighs in on Presidential Race for First Time Ever
4 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."

Source:
COMMISSIONERS NEED TO DELIBERATE MORE
FCC Pushes Vote on Set-Top Boxes
4 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Federal regulators on Thursday delayed a vote on a proposal to reshape the television market by freeing consumers from cable box rentals, putting into doubt a plan that has pitted technology companies against cable television providers. ... The proposal will still be considered for a future vote. But Tom Wheeler, chairman of the F.C.C., said commissioners needed more discussions."

Source:
UNTIL DEC. 9, ANYWAY
Obama Signs Bill to Fund Government
9 hours ago
THE LATEST
REDSKINS IMPLICATIONS
SCOTUS to Hear Case on Offensive Trademarks
9 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

"The Supreme Court is taking up a First Amendment clash over the government’s refusal to register offensive trademarks, a case that could affect the Washington Redskins in their legal fight over the team name. The justices agreed Thursday to hear a dispute involving an Asian-American rock band called the Slants, but they did not act on a separate request to hear the higher-profile Redskins case at the same time." Still, any precedent set by the case could have ramifications for the Washington football team.

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Bannon Still Collecting Royalties from ‘Seinfeld’
11 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The Hollywood Reporter takes a look at a little-known intersection of politics and entertainment, in which Trump campaign CEO Steve Bannon is still raking in residuals from Seinfeld. Here's the digest version: When Seinfeld was in its infancy, Ted Turner was in the process of acquiring its production company, Castle Rock, but he was under-capitalized. Bannon's fledgling media company put up the remaining funds, and he agreed to "participation rights" instead of a fee. "Seinfeld has reaped more than $3 billion in its post-network afterlife through syndication deals." Meanwhile, Bannon is "still cashing checks from Seinfeld, and observers say he has made nearly 25 times more off the Castle Rock deal than he had anticipated."

Source:
×