I recently thought back to the first Gulf War, of which I was proudly a part of as a Aircraft Handler on board the Amphibious Assault Ship, USS New Orleans, LPH-11. I recalled the excuse used at the time for not removing Saddam Hussein from power, that it would create a leadership vacuum in the middle east paving the way for it to be filled by the likes of the Mullah's from Iran. What began as a reminisce of good times, became a review of our own current leadership vacuum, at the highest levels of the US Government.
Leadership, especially at the level required in the Office of the President, is a very visible thing, especially when it is all but non-existent. America has a long standing history of leaders. Men, and women, who stood head and shoulders above their peers, and lead the way forward. Now, let me be clear here, this is NOT a partisan thing. However, ideology does come into play. You see, it is yet another difference between Capitalist leadership and Marxist/Socialist leadership.
A Capitalist leader understands that someone has to make the call. Someone has to be the one to make the tough decision, and willing to take the lumps that come with being wrong. A Socialist leader believes that decision making is a consensus exercise. A leader from the socialist mold is basically incapable of making a decision without consensus from the collective. These leaders have to surround themselves with like minded individuals in order to ensure that the collective consensus actually occurs. Capitalist leaders understand that a leader is sometimes the loneliest person in the room. Socialist leaders can not even stand being alone in a room.
A socialist leader has to have cover and deniability at all times for any decision made. These leaders never want to have the full responsibility of made decisions on their shoulders. Thus, they rely on the argument that it was a consensus decision and therefore shift the blame for failure to someone else. This is the problem that we currently have in Washington, DC. You see it in almost every decision made or not made, by the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
We have been told that President Obama is a leader among leaders. That to question his leadership or his ideology is to be racist and insensitive. We are pounded daily by reports of his "style" of leadership and his erudition. We are treated to professorial lectures whenever We the People do not buy into his collectivist decisions. This is not leadership, on any level. Leadership is not about style and lectures. It is not about speeches and fundraising dinners. It is about standing up and standing out for your ideas and your decisions. Perhaps the questions we should have asked during the 2008 election was what had he ever been a leader of.
We have had the press try to paint Obama as a leader in the mold of Ronald Reagan. However, putting the two side by side shows just how little leadership Obama has shown in comparison. Like many great leaders in History, Reagan stood head and shoulders above those around him. He made his decisions and stood by them. He stood up to fascists and communist dictators alike with stalwart strength and resoluteness. He stood up to Qaddafi in Libya, and struck fear into the heart of the mullahs in Iran.
Now, Obama, in comparison, has failed to even engage the problems of his time. North Korea is more defiant now than two years ago. Qaddafi has defied and continues to defy America while Obama has pushed any decision making and responsibility off to some NATO collective. Iran laughs out loud of the weakness of American leadership, and China and Russia are completely unimpressed or persuaded by the President.
So, if Obama pales in comparison to Reagan, than who can he be compared to...Nero perhaps.