Leaderless

In his memÂoir, LeÂon PanÂetta arÂgued that for all of Barack Obama's strengths, he is missÂing an esÂsenÂtial inÂgrediÂent of leadÂerÂship. He lacks "fire," wrote Obama's former CIA dirÂectÂor and Pentagon chief. "The presÂidÂent reÂlies on the loÂgic of a law proÂfessÂor rather than the pasÂsion of a leadÂer."

Obama has proved PanÂetta right again and again durÂing his presÂidÂency, but nevÂer more danÂgerÂously so than with his shoulder-shrug apÂproach to ISÂIS. Obama called it a "J.V. team" beÂfore it starÂted beÂheadÂing AmerÂicÂans. He said it was "conÂtained" beÂfore it atÂtacked ParÂis. Now he's callÂing it "a bunch of killers with good soÂcial meÂdia."

That's how you deÂscribe a street gang--a bunch of killers with good soÂcial meÂdia. The IsÂlamÂic State is no street gang.

ObÂjectÂive obÂservÂers from across the politÂicÂal specÂtrum took exÂcepÂtion to Obama's tone. This from Frank Bruni, a libÂerÂal-minded New York Times columÂnist:

He was at his worst just after the ParÂis atÂtacks, when he comÂmuÂnicÂated as much irÂritÂaÂtion with the second-guessÂing of his stewÂardÂship as he did outÂrage over ParÂis and deÂtermÂinÂaÂtion to desÂtroy the IsÂlamÂic State, or ISÂIS.

He owed us something difÂferÂent, something more. He'd just said, the day beÂfore ParÂis, that ISÂIS was conÂtained and that it was weakÂenÂing, so there was an onus on him to make abundÂantly clear that he grasped the magÂnitude of the threat and was inÂtensely foÂcused on it.

From Obama we needed fire. InÂstead we got emÂbers, along with the un-presÂidÂenÂtial porÂtrayÂal of ReÂpubÂlicÂans as snivÂelÂing wimps whose fears about refugees were akin to their comÂplaints about tough deÂbate quesÂtions.

The man who so aptly diaÂgnosed Obama's tonÂal weakÂness, LeÂon PanÂetta, apÂpeared on Meet the Press on Sunday to deÂmand more leadÂerÂship against ISÂIS. This time, he stuck to subÂstance--and was no less devÂastÂatÂing.

"I think the U.S. has to lead in this efÂfort beÂcause what we've learned a long time ago is that if the United States does not lead, nobody else will," PanÂetta said. He blamed Obama for unÂder-serving his promÂise to disÂrupt and deÂfeat ISÂIS. "I think that the reÂsources apÂplied to that misÂsion, frankly, have not been sufÂfiÂcient to conÂfront that."

PanÂetta is not alone among DemoÂcrats worÂried about Obama's apÂproach. LeadÂing DemoÂcratÂic SenÂatÂor DiÂanne FeinÂstein told Face the NaÂtion that the United States is not doÂing enough to fight the IsÂlamÂic State.

"We need to be agÂgressÂive," she said. "Now." inst ISÂIS would reÂquire shared sacÂriÂfice. I am symÂpathÂetÂic to the fact that Obama faces no easy opÂtions after inÂherÂitÂing PresÂidÂent Bush's ill-conÂceived war in IrÂaq. And I've got abÂsoÂlutely no paÂtience for the GOP presÂidÂenÂtial field's hyÂperÂbolÂic, disÂhonÂest, and bigÂoted rhetÂorÂic.

But there is only one comÂmandÂer-in-chief, and ours is stubÂbornly clingÂing to a strategy against ISÂIS that lacks clarÂity, creÂativÂity, and urÂgency. There is only one presÂidÂent, and ours doesn't seem to know how to rally us to a comÂmon cause.

Look at this TwitÂter feed from Ron Klain, a leadÂing DemoÂcratÂic conÂsultÂant who served as Obama's Ebola czar. He reÂcalls the irÂraÂtionÂal, politÂicÂally charged calls to close U.S. borÂders to people from naÂtions stricken by the disÂease--a panÂic not unÂlike the one over SyrÂiÂan refugees today. "Ebola exÂperÂiÂence ofÂfers three lesÂsons for manÂaging fears," Klain writes.

1. AcÂknowÂledge and adÂdress the pubÂlic's fear. Don't disÂmiss it as ilÂleÂgitÂimÂate. "That only exÂacerÂbates fears and fuels doubts about leadÂers' candor."

2. ExÂplain the dangers of "givÂing inÂto fears." InÂacÂtion is risÂkiÂer than acÂtion.

3. "Show that govÂernÂment has a plan to manÂage the risk--not igÂnorÂing the risk, but takÂing actÂive, serÂiÂous steps to reÂduce it."

Klain didn't say this but I will: On ISÂIS, Obama breaks every rule. He minÂimÂizes the threat and disÂmisses our fears, which raises doubts about his candor and capÂabÂilÂity. An overÂwhelmÂing maÂjorÂity of AmerÂicÂans disÂapÂprove of his handÂling of ISÂIS, a new poll shows, and 81 perÂcent think ISÂIS will strike the United States.

In JuÂly 2013, six months inÂto his second term, I wrote a column that quesÂtioned whethÂer Obama would fulÂfill his enormÂous poÂtenÂtial, whethÂer he even cared anyÂmore about his promÂises to change WashÂingÂton, whethÂer he could write the modÂern rules of the presÂidÂency and build a new bully pulÂpit. I asked, "What if Obama can't lead?"

Leaderless

I once asked, "What if Obama can't lead?"

The answer after Paris is painful.
Ron Fournier
Nov. 23, 2015, 1:42 p.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.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.