But it is still unclear whether his soaring rhetoric and somewhat humbler stance will succeed in advancing U.S. objectives, be they the spread of democracy or containing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. What is clear is that the president, because of circumstances and his own temperament, is acting less as the so-called most powerful man in the world and more as the planet's master of ceremonies -- nudging, exhorting and charming, but less comfortable flexing U.S. muscles than many of his predecessors.The past week was a microcosm of his entire presidency. Even as Obama grappled with Japan's crises, the debate over military force against Libya's Moammar Gaddafi, Saudi Arabia's military intervention in Bahrain and Israel's decision to expand settlements following the killing of a family of settlers, the president had to prepare for a trip to Latin America, continue his budget battle on Capitol Hill, weigh in on education reform and make at least four media appearances concerning his March Madness picks.
He did something besides media appearances?
For those of us who have decried for years the image of a John Wayne America, a bully with an itchy trigger finger, the more temperate attitude is welcome.
Bully? John Wayne? Shows what you know!
But defaulting to talk therapy makes sense only if the approach reduces risks while still advancing the nation's interests. If, for political or economic or personality reasons, the United States and its leaders are perceived as less forceful in the world -- if the "or else" is off the table-- then the country's initiatives are certain to be less effective. Ask those in charge of Iran's nuclear program.
Or anybody at Rantburg.
If, in the wake of the United States' upcoming departure from Iraq, the administration finds a way to declare victory in Afghanistan and start withdrawing forces there as well, Obama will lead a nation seemingly less interested in projecting force overseas or acting unilaterally than it has been in the past several decades, not perhaps since Jimmy Carter in the post-Vietnam period.
Given the costs of the the United States' recent overseas misadventures, many would welcome such a shift.
The problem is, no one can calculate the cost of not having those adventures. What would the world look like if we (and Korea and Australia) had not lived up to our treaty obligation to South Vietnam? Different, for sure. But better, or worse?
But for those accustomed to turning to the United States for strong leadership or to provide the spine in unwilling international partnerships, it is likely to prove a frustrating change. The master of ceremonies, after all, may win applause and even seem to run the show,
[insert the Great and Powerful Wizard of Oz graphic here]
but such appearances are an illusion, and many of the leading roles will be left to nations and leaders unaccustomed to or uncomfortable with the limelight. Their performances may not appeal to U.S. audiences, and they may even suffer stage fright and leave the world's stage unoccupied -- save perhaps for the lone figure still holding the mic, commenting on whether the United States likes how things are going.
Sorry, that's too much left to chance. There's plenty of hot dogs out there that'll be glad to step into the void, and most of them are scarier than Sarkozy. Leadership means leading, not cheerleading. Cheerleaders don't win ball games.