Is there an antonym for “leadership?”
You know who sounds like he isn’t ready for Washington hard-ball? A White House advisor dim-witted enough to argue that military commanders should put a soft, political-friendly spin on a tough, deteriorating war. Couple that idiotic statement with General Jones openly contradicting McChrystal’s military assessment, and this NYT piece claiming that Obama isn’t a fan of Petraeus because of some strange, sophomoric popularity envy, and you’ve got an Administration that comes off as if hurt feelings and juvenile emotions are disconnecting civilian leadership from harsh strategic reality. This is admittedly insider business, but all accounts sound like the President is stacking his war cabinet with sycophantic political cronies who tell him what he wants to hear on the war. Blunt, honest assessments — like Petraeus and McChrystal’s — are frowned on and can even make the President “furious.” This is fast becoming the anti-stoic presidency. While President Bush sacrificed personal popularity and political viability on the altar of military victory and Senator McCain campaigned on “I’d rather lose an election than lose a war,” President Obama has demonstrated time and time again that he’s not made of stern enough stuff to run a wartime White House. Should Secretary Gates resign at the end of the year, the prospects of victory in Afghanistan will be dim indeed.
