We’ve gotten to know President Obama fairly well over the last three years. Even among his critics, whether you criticize him for doing nothing, or criticize him for changing everything, we can all agree that, as with his predecessor, Obama has had a healthy amount of headaches on his plate recently. No sympathy here—it’s called leadership.
So, how has he done? Just what kind of leader is our current president?
Generalization alert! Let’s simplify things. When it comes to leadership, especially as it applies to the position of American president, I believe there are two basic extremes: the “thinker” and the “decision maker.” Of course, this applies any number of fields, and any given individual undoubtedly displays characteristics from both sides. Just for kicks, let’s take a look at each.
The decision maker is, unfortunately, not much of a thinker. They are not the best at determining the root cause of a problem, due to an innate hostility with complex ideas. He or she is not an idiot—rather a pragmatist. They are more comfortable with experience, rather than conjecture.
They also shun the perspective of their opponent; they are enemies, after all. They know what is right, pick a method, and follow it through to the end. Sometimes they choose the wrong method. Sometimes the failure is a spectacular one.
The thinker is, unfortunately, not much of a decisionmaker. They can identify a problem immediately, determining its probable causes, its ultimate significance, and can express this information in an intelligent and succinct manner. They are fairly knowledgeable; well-read, comfortable with complexity, distrustful of black and white generalizations. They can appreciate the views of his opponent—he’s just a guy with different ideas, after all.
Sometimes, a thinker gets muddled up in all the competing interests in a given scenario. They are right, and so is the opponent. They knows that this method has worked in the past, but also knows that the exact opposite has been successful, too. They thought they understood an issue, but the more learned, the less defined it becomes. Mired in cautious neutrality, thinkers can get trapped in a purgatory of indecision.
Neither one has all the answers, nor does any one extreme make a better a leader. History shows success can pick either archetype. Frequently, as is the case in the military and police work—thinking officers coupled with decision-making platoon sergeants, or such—the two tend to work together.
As you’ve probably guessed, yes, the moral of the story is that both are necessary, and indispensable.
A million and a half arguments can be made for either side, though I’m personally inclined to peg President Obama as being on the “thinker” side of the equation. Regarding his predecessor…well, let’s just say that thinkin’ wasn’t his strong suit.
When it comes to foreign policy, President Bush was, by a wide margin, a decision maker. We were attacked by al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda was operating from Afghanistan. We attacked Afghanistan. American, British and Israeli intelligence indicated Saddam Hussein was involved, too. Hussein was operating out of Iraq. We attacked Iraq. Come hell or high water, Mr. Bush was at least committed to sticking both out—whether this was from being stubborn, or determination is in the eyes of the beholder.
Obama, on the other hand, varies in his approach to foreign affairs. Actually, as far as American foreign policy doctrines go, he has said remarkably little. Indeed, the biggest consistency of the Obama doctrine is its inconsistency—which is not necessarily a bad thing. After all, it is foolish for so complex an art as foreign intervention to be reduced to a simple equation. Flexibility, and a willingness to adapt to myriad scenarios are crucial to successful foreign policy.
Thus far, the president has avoided any major slip ups. Whether this is due to good luck, or sheer coordinative skill is impossible to say, though I would argue for a combination of the two. No particularly tricky foreign policy decisions have come his way. In Iraq, go by the Bush plan. In Afghanistan, go by the Bush plan. In Libya, dump the Bush plan, and let NATO get its hands dirty for once.
Unfortunately, I doubt this policy can ride on the wave of good fortune indefinitely. While flexibility is basically good, too much will leave our standards of foreign policy an incohesive mess. The Libya campaign, painless as it was, took a painfully long time to be implemented. The rebel forces were all but decimated by the time we finally entered the fray. My response? As I learned in the Marines, a good plan enacted competently now is better than a perfect plan enacted too late.
The rules of strategic engagement are especially poorly defined. We got involved in Libya for, it seems, little more than moral support. What about Darfur? Rwanda? My answer here is that neither one yields any real strategic relevance to the United States. This leaves a number of questions unanswered.
President Bush Sr. was a fairly healthy combination of decision maker and thinker, as was President Clinton. The junior Bush was a decision maker by any measure. Obama is a thinker, with a small touch of the decision maker—though in my opinion, not nearly enough.
It’s a bit of dreary reflection of the times when we as Americans are limited to one or the other extreme. ?