We have a running gag in our house in which I attribute natural disasters all over the world to a “lack of leadership” on the part of President Obama. The point, of course, is that he has no control over these events. The difference between, say, the state of the rebellion in Syria and a tornado is one of degree rather than kind.
“Leadership” is viewed by the MSM and some Americans as strong and decisive action, regardless of its ultimate implications for the country. By that standard, Lee’s decision to ignore Longstreet’s advice and to authorize Pickett’s Charge was great “leadership.” Or, to use a more contemporary example, George W. Bush’s decision to engage in a war of choice in Iraq in the face of international hostility was also outstanding “leadership.”
Demonstrating “leadership” is only important to people who confuse self-esteem with the national interest. The real issue in foreign policy is not whether we are showing “leadership,” but if any given action is in the national interest–i.e., is it the best available way to promote our prosperity and enhance our security? If so, whether we are perceived to be responsible for it or not is meaningless.