Leadership, particularly as it relates to US relations with Arab nations, is not one size fits all, or as the Bush crowd would suggest, respond in the same (consistent?) manner with a standard boxed solutionl, regardless of any unique circumstances in those nations.
In effect, the Bush/neo-con approach was to show how tough and threatening the US can be.
What does that often accomplish? Inflaming anti-Americanism and giving dictators in the region the rationale to claim that any popular uprising is a US plot or a front for US action.
Leadership is not speaking with the loudest, most aggressive voice, particularly when it applies to US relations with other cultures.
IMO, one sign of leadership was when Obama went to Egypt early his administration and told the Egyptian people that we are not their enemy (despite the non-step anti-Muslim rhetoric that continues to exist on the US right), but that they, the Egyptian, people must also acknowledge that some among their religion are the enemy.
What ace fails to recognize is that recent circumstances in Egypt, Bahrain, Libya, etc are not the same. One does not need to stand in front of the international media (and the American people) and proclaim that the US will lead an effort to overthrow a tyrant....but one can take actions behind the scenes (freezing assets, working in the background towards a UN mandate, with France in the lead, quietly encouraging other Arab nations to participate) to further that common goal with the people of those nations.
---------- Post added at 11:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:44 AM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Right, it's my problem that I think Obama has acted in a manner that lacks clarity. All is well, please ignore my ramblings.
|
No, I think your problem is that you only see one solution, a simple, ideological solution, to complex and evolving issues in the Arab world. You see quietly working behind the scenes until a situation evolves to a point where a greater presence may be productive as lacking clarity or leadership. I see it as effective, deliberative leadership, making decisions without the ego that has to publicly proclaim "I am the decider" in order to project a macho image.
Just my opinion.