Friday, March 25, 2011

Where Have All The Leaders Gone?

I've had two lines of thought bothering me for weeks now.  I've been harping on the idea that something needed to be done to stop the civilian deaths in Libya yet no one wanted to step forward.  When finally done, there was no plan what-so-ever and still no one wants the responsibility.  The probable outcome is likely to be dismal.  Would a stronger president have taken a stand for or against intervention and explained the reasoning to us?  I'd like to think so.

Given that, I got to thinking about all the other civil unrest going on in the mid-east and continental Africa, not to mention other areas of the world, and why Libya has gotten the attention it has.  The media.  If they would get on the case in Darfur, for instance, we  be clamoring for intervention there?  Probably so.  Should we?  Yes.  Could we?  Realistically, no.  We were lucky with Egypt.  Mainly because the army refused to fire on the people. Luck ran out in Libya.

We are looked to for leadership.  This president does not want it nor will he take it.  Saying no takes just as much leadership as saying yes, maybe even more.  But a leader must be willing to take a risk and do what's right for our country regardless of political expediency. A leader must also be willing to communicate with his people and his government, to answer their questions and take the flak that may come with it.   Obama does not seem to have the inclination.  The result is mixed and incomplete messages that come across as weakness rather than deliberitiveness.

That takes me to another subject I've been stewing over.  How can the world sit back and allow these things to happen and how can it be so selective as to where there is effort to stop it or not.  The amount of press it receives and the reaction to it. Since civil conflict seems to be a way of life around the world strong policies are needed for dealing with it .  Or not.  And we need to know what they are.  Obviously at this time we have nothing cohesive nor coherent.  It falls on the president and his administration.  Other countries, too, need to know exactly where we stand and why.

My second dilemma.  I'm beginning to formulate what I'd like to see in the upcoming presidential candidates.  So far I'm not encouraged. What I've learned is to not be overly impressed with an ability to give a good speech, but rather look for substance and more importantly experience.   If I want a leader I want someone with proven skills, not just soaring rhetoric. If I want a leader I want to see someone who has had life experience outside  the narrowness of academia and one willing to call on real experts over cronies.  That's probably a pipe dream.  Broad knowledge of heath care, business,  economics, social issues and everything else we need to deal with.  It's a very tall order.

I'm sorry we don't have a strong woman in the queue.  Not a Michele Bachmann nor a Sarah Palin.  I never thought I'd say it, but Hillary is the only woman who has a real grasp of what's needed.  She's been in the thick of it.  It shows.  She looks exhausted. She wants no more of it.

Why a woman?  Because of the nature of the job.  Women are superb multi-taskers.  Men are not.  Other than  Germany's Angela Merkel, the leadership involved in the mid-east mess are all men.  We have the bullies. We have the victims of the bullies and it isn't just the people of the bullies' countries.

1 comment:

Margie's Musings said...

Women are not so likely to send their children into war. They negotiate. They're used to negotiating.

If we jump into every skirmish in the world, we will forever be in a war. Some cultures are just warlike. That seems to be the way they handle discord.

Much as I would like our country to lead the world in peacemaking, ours evidently is one of those warlike countries. As long as men are our leaders, that seems to be their mode of operation.

War solves nothing. It just creates a new set of problems.