I sat down to compose an entry about my concerns for what I see as a total lack of leadership and absence of decision making skills on the part of our President. This in the time before he makes his long awaited, and thus far reported woefully inadequate, announcement on troop strength in Afghanistan. Then I found the following opinion piece by Mitt Romney and I realized that I could hardly express myself better. We missed the chance to elect Mr. Romney when he was clearly the most qualified person in the race, from any party, last year. We are all paying for our countries slip in logic and temporary insanity now.
Mr. Obama is getting his first taste of leadership in his later 40's. I've been in leadership and management positions dating back to my high school job running the weekend kitchen staff at a Shoney's, and for the last 20 years in International Business. I'm a fairly smart guy, and my IQ tests out around or about the same level as the President's. Nonetheless, while I am more qualified for his current job than he is, I do not possess anywhere the level of arrogance to think I should actually have that job. His narcissism is truly frightening. But I digress, here is Mitt Romney's take on the issue from Politico.com.
"During the presidential campaign, many Americans thought that Barack Obama’s lack of leadership experience would not prevent him from being an effective president. His eloquence, his insistence that, yes, he could solve any problem and his image, so artfully crafted by his advertising team, led by David Axelrod, convinced many that hope could trump demonstrated ability. It has not. Nowhere is the evidence more apparent than in his mismanagement of the conflict in Afghanistan.
In March, not long after taking office, President Obama explained his convictions regarding the conflict. He charged that “the terrorists who planned and supported the Sept. 11 attacks are in Pakistan and Afghanistan.” Further, “if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban, that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can.” And he concluded: “To succeed, we and our friends and allies must reverse the Taliban’s gains and promote a more capable and accountable Afghan government.” What followed this bold and definitive goal was the classic failing of people without real leadership experience: the inability to do what is necessary to achieve one’s objective.
The president refused to focus on what was most important. He took on so many tasks that he underinvested in the most critical ones. The restructuring of the entire health care system and his cap-and-trade proposal eclipsed the economy and the war. Investor Warren Buffett, the “sage of Omaha,” counseled him against such a foolhardy agenda, but Buffett’s wisdom was no match for the heady prospect of all-encompassing change.
So it was that in the first 100 days after his appointment in June of Gen. Stanley McChrystal as commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, Obama met with the general only once. After the press took note of it, the president squeezed in a mere 25 minutes for McChrystal when he was in Copenhagen to pitch Chicago’s Olympics bid. In the annals of American history, it is certain that no wartime president has ever spent less time with his generals than Obama has.
A full year after being elected, Obama still does not have a strategy for Afghanistan. His apologists explain that rather than rush a decision, it is better to get it right. But at some point, deliberation, if it goes on too long, becomes indecision. It is fair to ask, What has he been doing for the past 12 months that took precedence over his responsibility for our soldiers? "
Click here for the complete article at Politico.com
I'm thinking Mitt Romney and J.C. Watts as a potentially interesting pairing in 2012.