As Politico's Ben Smith notes, the Obama administration's "leading from behind" in Libya -- having NATO lead the military operations, getting the cooperation from the Arab League, and letting the Libyan opposition have the main stake in the outcome -- seems to have been a success. But it hasn’t been an easy five months for the White House. In fact, it emphasizes how difficult managing a war, even one being waged “from behind,” can be in this 24-7 media environment. Consider: The American Revolutionary War, with an assist from France, lasted some eight years; the U.S. Civil War lasted four years; and World War II lasted about that same amount of time. There is little patience when the news cycle changes every hour. The one ironic exception, of course: the Afghanistan war, which has lasted nearly 10 years…Something feels too simplistic here. The entire notion of "leading from behind" being a good or bad strategy strikes me as missing the point. It depends.
A quick metaphor:
Mom and dad go on vacation and leave their 4 young children at home.Again, it depends. In the case of health care reform, the President was the proverbial mom and dad who skipped town for a year and didn't leave anyone to watch over the kids in Congress. In fact, he left it to the kids to run their own show, while appointing a weak babysitter (his staff) to run only moderate interference. In that case, leading from behind was a failure because the entire effort was almost a loss, and in the end the President got far less than he potentially could have gotten had he truly led the effort.
1. Mom and dad pick a great babysitter to take care of the kids and all goes well.
2. Mom and dad pick a lousy babysitter to take care of the kids and all goes badly.
3. Mom and dad don't pick anyone to take care of the kids, and all goes badly.
So mom and dad "led from behind" on this one, but in some scenarios leading from behind worked while in others it didn't. So is leading from behind a wise or unwise strategy?
Not to mention, the President continues to lead from behind in doing PR on health care reform and the stimulus. In this case, leading from behind means not doing a thing while the GOP continues to blast those initiatives every day to the point where the public now thinks both were a bust (more so in the case of the stimulus), and they weren't.
In the case of Libya, the President claims to have ceded control to NATO (I heard at the beginning of the mission, at least, the US was just pretending to let France take the lead, for public consumption). NATO as babysitter is a far cry from giving control of health care reform to a bipartisan Gang of Six run by Republicans who don't want a deal and Democrats bought off by the insurance industry. NATO is a strong alternative leader; the guys Obama picked on health care reform were not.
Or look at the debt ceiling. The President led from in front on that one, and did a terrible job. Partially because he's a horrible negotiator, and partially because he seems to have no core beliefs. Does the President's poor performance in the debt ceiling talks prove that he shouldn't lead from in front, or does it simply prove that regardless of where he sits, this particular President is simply a bad leader?
