By Karl Rove
The president seems irresolute and unreliable even when doing the right thing.
Wars even good ones require worthy explanation and justification. Both were missing in President Obamas address to the nation on Monday night.
While the presidents speech on Libya was adequate at times what stood out were statements that were contradictory confusing and outright untrue.
Mr. Obama said an important strategic interest was at risk in Libya. I believe thats so. But members of Mr. Obamas national security team send the opposite message.
The president insisted that America took a series of swift steps in a matter of days. In fact the administration dithered for over two weeks. Mr. Obama claimed At my direction America led an effort to create a no-fly zone . . . to protect the Libyan people. In truth the direction and leadership came from the French the British and even the Arab League. Thank goodness French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister David Cameron had the brass to push for bombing. Otherwise Mr. Obama still might be contemplating action not taking it.
On Monday the candidate who dismissed a coalition of 40 countries in Iraq became the president celebrating an alliance of only 15 nations operating in Libya. He also insisted the operations command would move swiftly from America to NATO to give the appearance of transferring the mission to a multinational body. Mr. Obama didnt remind the country that NATO is commanded by an American Adm. James Stavridis. So the baton has been handed from an American general to an American admiral.
The president said I made it clear that Gadhafi had lost the confidence of his people and the legitimacy to lead and I said that he needed to step down. But Mr. Obama still has offered no real strategy to bring about the Libyan dictators removal. When an American president says someone should go they really must. If they stay Americas credibility is undermined and adversaries are emboldened.
Mr. Obama also came out rhetorically for his predecessors Freedom Agenda saying America supports freedom for people to express themselves and choose their leaders throughout the region. That statement is at odds with what Mr. Obama said in June 2005 when he insisted we cannot and should not foist our own vision of democracy on the Middle East.
The president claimed he authorized military action after consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress. Not quite. Mr. Obama made his decision Tuesday then waited nearly three days before informing 18 members of Congress that bombing would commencein 90 minutes! If Mr. Obamas predecessor had tried to pass that off as serious congressional consultation then-Senate Foreign Affairs Chairman Joe Biden would have called for impeachment hearings.
All this muddle adds to the sense that Mr. Obama is irresolute weak and unreliable even when doing the right thing.
Among a presidents most important possessions is a reputation as a strong leader. A Gallup poll released yesterday found that 52 of Americans see President Obama as a strong and decisive leader. Thats down from 60 a year ago and 73 in April 2009. Only 17 in a March 22 Reuters/Ipsos poll saw Mr. Obama as a strong and decisive military leader.
The economy will dominate the 2012 presidential election but national security issues will shape public attitudes about Mr. Obama as well. Issues eventually congeal to create an impression of a presidents public character. Mr. Obamas problem is that his handling of foreign policy challenges like Libya adds to his image of weakness. As a general rule strong leaders get re-elected; weak ones dont.
This is a chief executive who is willing America into a subordinate non-leadership role in world affairs who sees the United States as an ordinary nation. This is a potentially toxic political brew for any politician but most especially for a commander in chief.
