Author: Barbara

In spite of its obvious importance, an item in the news this week went nearly unnoticed. It failed to get attention because the American media is consumed by American dysfunction. The government shutdown has sucked the air out of the room.

The fact that two Marine generals were in effect fired for incompetence – Taliban fighters breached a coalition air base under their command in southern Afghanistan, killing two Marines and destroying or damaging more than a dozen aircraft – is a very big deal. It’s a rare example of the U. S. military holding its highest officers to account for their performance on the job. Major General Charles Gurganus and Major General Gregg Sturdevant were relieved of their duties for failing to “take adequate force protection measures,” and for not exercising the “level of judgment expected of general officers.” In making his announcement, the commandant of the Marine Crops, General James Amos, said he had censured Sturdevant for depending too heavily on the British to protect the Americans (the air base was formally under British control). And that he had punished Gurganus because he was the one who “bore final accountability for the lives and equipment under his charge.”

In the wake of the Vietnam War, now widely regarded as lost, the American military was largely ignored or even demeaned. Americans were embarrassed less by it than by their own intervention in a war that was very high in cost and very low in benefit. More recently our attitudes have changed. In spite of widespread doubts about the virtue of American intervention both in Afghanistan and Iraq, the U. S. military has regained its previous position of honor in America’s collective consciousness. Whatever you might feel about the now ubiquitous line from American civilians to members of the Armed Forces – “Thank You for Your Service” – it is an attempt to extend respect.

But the deeper truth is that the American military is just like every other American institution – its leadership cadre is under attack. The most visible (and, some would say, risible) example was its most famous (and, some would say, most pompous) general, David Petraeus, feeling forced to quit his position as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency because of an extramarital affair. Not far behind is General Stanley McChrystal, who was pushed by the president to resign because of injudicious remarks made to a reporter for Rolling Stone. But these personal humiliations are chump change compared to the professional questioning to which America’s military command has recently been subjected.

Three recent books make my case. In “Invisible Armies” military historian Max Boot argues that, “unfortunately, our ignorance of guerrilla war runs deep, even as we find ourselves increasingly entangled in such conflicts” (Wall Street Journal, 1/13). In tellingly titled “Bleeding Talent,” and tellingly subtitled “How the U.S. Military Mismanages Great Leaders and Why it’s Time for a Revolution,” military veteran Tim Kane claims that “in terms of attracting and training innovative leaders, the U. S. military is unparalleled. In terms of managing talent, the U. S. military is doing everything wrong.” And in “The Generals,” longtime military reporter Thomas Ricks points out that the way in which “the generals themselves are managed has fundamentally shifted since World War II” – and not for the better. Then they were held accountable. “Firing, like hiring, was simply one of the basic tasks of senior managers.” Now they are not. Now, with some very few exceptions, they are allowed to remain in place. For Ricks this raises several questions: “How and why did we lose the longstanding practice of relieving generals for failure? Why has accountability declined? And is it connected to the decline in the operational competence of American generals?”

There is no reason that military leaders should be exempt from assessment. This is not to suggest that they become targets of public rebuke. Rather it is to point out that the relief of Generals Gurganus and Sturdevant was completely in keeping with the reforms that Ricks properly proposed.

Though 80 percent of Americans say that threatening a government shutdown is an unacceptable way to negotiate, that’s exactly what’s happening in Washington. The president says he is unwilling to negotiate with Republican “extremists.” And Republicans are too busy fighting with each other even to notice whatever the rhetoric emanating from the White House.

The result is the American people held hostage to a government so hobbled it raises questions about democracy in the 21st century. And the result is the United States of America itself diminished by dysfunction that has transitioned from episodic to chronic.

If this were the first time that the president and the Congress had been unable to do the people’s work it would be one thing. But this has become a pattern – Ground Hog Day on steroids. Repeatedly we witness the spectacle of elected officials so mired in their own morass they are unable to do the right thing in anything resembling a civilized and timely manner. Too few in Washington are able to lead. Too few in Washington are willing to follow. Too many members of the governing class are atomized – unable to connect to compromise.

How different the picture at the international level! Right and left amazing things are happening! Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin have become best friends forever. Bashir al-Assad is willing suddenly to surrender his arsenal of chemical weapons. The American president and the Iranian president are chatting on the phone. And the Israelis and Palestinians are engaging in continuing conversation.

How to explain this disconnect – the difference between being stuck in domestic affairs and, apparently, forging ahead in foreign affairs? Try this – self interest. It is not that the American president is a failure at home and a success abroad, that he cannot lead here but he can lead there. Rather it is that for a constellation of reasons there is in world affairs, for the moment at least, a coincidence of self interest. It is in Putin’s self interest to press his client, Assad, to get rid of his chemical weapons. It is in Assad’s self interest to go along with his patron, Putin. It is in Iran’s self interest to negotiate on its nuclear program in order to reduce the crippling sanctions against it. It is in the self interest of the Israelis and also the Palestinians to seem at least to be seriously negotiating under the watchful eye of Secretary of State John Kerry. And of course it is in Obama’s self interest to create a climate in which any one of these changes, not to speak of all of these changes, is, would be, a personal and political gift.

What I am arguing is that the difference between what is happening at home and what is happening abroad is more apparent than real. There is no more good leadership, or for that matter good followership, in foreign affairs than there is in domestic affairs. It is just that at the international level there happens to be, at this particular time, a coincidence of self interest. Putin’s self interest happens to coincide with Obama’s; Assad’s with Putin’s, Iranian president Hassan Rouhani’s with American president Barack Obama’s, and so on.

I will however admit that all this putative progress in international relations does raise an important question: why now? Is the coincidence of self interest merely coincidence? Or is there something in the ether that has enabled it, encouraged it? Mostly it is merely coincidence – but not entirely. The president of the United States deserves some credit for creating a context at the international level that has escaped him at the national level – one in which compromise is considered a game that under certain circumstances ends in a win-win. It is not necessarily, not always anyway, If I win you lose.

Her personal story is remarkable and her political triumph the more so. Angela Merkel has just led her party, Germany’s Christian Democrats, to its biggest victory in two decades. She could well be the first chancellor since Konrad Adenauer (in 1957) to not need a coalition partner in order to govern. She is only the third postwar chancellor (along with Adenaur and Helmut Kohl) to secure three successive election wins. And she has bucked the trend by become the only leader in the eurozone to be reelected since the eurocrisis (2010). By every measure she is a historic figure. And given the temper of the times – times in which democratically elected leaders the world over have a difficult time governing – her well-deserved victory yesterday is nothing short of striking.

Post World War II Germany is one of the greatest political and economic success stories ever. The country transformed itself – was transformed with considerable American help – from fascism to democracy with amazing alacrity. Not only was there within a generation scarcely a trace of the Nazism that had gripped the country between 1933 and 1945, democracy and also pacifism took such strong root that over a half century later they constitute an apparently enduring legacy.

After the collapse of communism, and then reunification, Germany became once again a powerhouse, without question the strongest country, politically and economically, in Europe. What’s been amazing for a student of leadership to watch is how this particular woman, Merkel, has led this particular country by downplaying her own strength in favor of a leadership style that seems in every way modest. In keeping with her own trajectory – she is the daughter of an East German pastor – her appearance is maternal, nondescript. Her manner of communicating is decidedly low key. Her way with a crowd is anything other than rousing. And she governs by consensus, not by command and control. She is pragmatic, plain, and even tempered. She is clear-headed and centrist. She has certain goals, but no one would ever describe her as visionary.

Europe is a continent and the euro is a currency both in need of help – help that Germany has turned out willing to provide, but only, apparently, reluctantly. Ironically, it is this apparent reluctance to lead – this leading in low gear – that has stood Merkel in such good stead. By seeming to lead only when she absolutely must, she has turned out to be the most powerful and successful leader in Europe, by far.

Barack Obama and John Boehner have morphed into mirror images. Right now neither one of them is able to rustle up followers sufficient in numbers to do what their leaders want and intend.

Barack Obama just gave in to his putative followers – in this case liberal Senate Democrats – who made clear their opposition to the appointment of Larry Summers as chair of the Federal Reserve. (Summers, knowing he was toast, withdrew his name from contention even before he was formally nominated.) And John Boehner just gave in to his putative followers – in this case conservative House Republicans – who made clear their opposition to an agreement on the federal budget without a resolution stripping funding for Obamacare.

The press jumped on its prey – leaders so obviously weakened that dissecting what happened was an impulse impossible to resist. Writing in Politico, a liberal rag generally sympathetic to the White House, John Harris and Todd Purdum asked, “What’s wrong with President Obama”? (9/18) They went on: “The president’s harried, serial about-faces on Syria – coupled with the collapse of Larry Summers’s candidacy for chairmanship of the Federal Reserve – have combined to highlight some enduring limitations of Obama’s approach to decision-making, public persuasion, and political management. Across the capital, anxious friends and chortling enemies alike are asking: What’s wrong with Obama?” In a similar tone, a piece in the New York Times put Boehner’s plight this way: “A rotating cast of characters – often back-bench newcomers whom few have heard of outside their districts, and who were elected on a Tea Party wave – has emerged to challenge Speaker John A. Boehner’s leadership at every turn.”

It happens that both Obama and Boehner are centrists – ideologically and temperamentally. They are much more comfortable in the middle than they are either at the one extreme (the left) or the other (the right). But they are being torn in different directions by those around them, who refuse to give even an inch in order to walk a mile.

I am no great fan of either man. They are leaders with obvious deficits. But neither one of them is a fool, and neither one of them is anything other than well-intentioned. The problem they face is the time in which they live. Obama and Boehner are being victimized by the mood of the moment, in which likely as not leaders are rendered hapless by followers refusing to follow.

On August 16, in a similarly titled blog, I wrote how strikingly powerless was the American president not only at the national level, but at the international level as well. “American power has waned dramatically even in recent years, which means that the White House, the State Department, and even the Pentagon are generally unable to bend either individuals or institutions to their will.” I added that the American foreign policy establishment has been slow to understand how radical the changes to which I referred – and that with presidential power and authority so severely depleted, the only arrow remaining in Obama’s quiver was influence.

Little did I know then what I know now: that one month later, on September 14, would be announced an agreement between the United States and Russia, calling for the destruction or removal of Syria’s chemical arsenal within nine months. I will leave it to history to render a verdict on the agreement. I will leave to experts on weapons to determine whether the agreement is even feasible. And I will leave it to those more knowledgeable in foreign affairs than I to decide if the agreement is in the national interest.

However so far as leaders and followers are concerned, I will weigh in. Some preliminary conclusions:

• The Kremlin should be celebrating. Never in a million years would anyone have predicted that from one week to the next Putin would be transformed from a national figure in evident decline, to an international superstar who the U.S. was hustling to the negotiating table. Here was the view from Moscow a week or so ago: the regime was weakening, the economy was suffering, Putin’s popularity was dropping, and the Olympics (to take place in Russia next year) were being threatened by human rights activists. Now everything is different. Why? Because the American president has handed the Russian president a big fat gift: legitimization as full partner of the U. S. in a major international initiative. As Leon Aron summarized it in the Wall Street Journal: “Domestically, this turn of events has bolstered Mr. Putin’s image as someone who not only has unflinchingly confronted the U.S. – still the nation most feared and respected by Russians – but forced it to change its course. Internationally, it has established Mr. Putin as a kind of go-to broker who has scuttled a seemingly imminent military strike by the U. S. Most importantly, from Moscow’s perspective, Mr. Obama’s move has delayed or perhaps eliminated what Russia sees as the worst possible outcome: regime change in a faithful major client in a geostrategically crucial region.”
• The White House should be grieving. Never in a million years would anyone have predicted that from one week to the next Obama would be transformed from a figure of some stature into a something of a weakling – apparently feeling obliged by the situation of his own making into breaking bread with Putin. By entering into negotiation with the Russian autocrat, the U.S. lost ground on each of the following: 1) Though we insist that the possibility of unilateral American military force remains, in order for the Russians to agree even to begin to talk, the Americans took force off the table, leaving whatever the relevant language on the cutting room floor. 2) Obama was never able to persuade either the Congress or the American people that chemical weapons (which so far have killed fewer than 2,000 Syrians) are so much more atrocious than other sorts of weapons (which so far have killed more than 100,000 Syrians). Why, in other words, did he decide to enter into an agreement with the Russians at this time, over this issue, when he failed to do much of anything at earlier points, when so much bloodshed and heartache might have been avoided? 3) Whoever the Syrian rebels are or are not – we know that there are many different factions, some of them extremists, others moderate Syrians still desperate to get rid of their dictator – we just did them in, at least for now. By cozying up to the Kremlin, Assad’s ally, we have turned our backs on any and all Syrians who want nothing so much as for their president to disappear. 4) Given that Putin is our new found friend, various anti-Putin initiatives will suffer. They range from human rights activism to the U.N. as the court of last resort. The Russians have long threatened to veto any American proposal to the Security Council to check Assad. Now, suddenly, they’re amenable to talking about the Syrian problem, but only outside the parameters of the world body. 5) For the time being at least, Assad, who arguably is single-handedly responsible for the misery of millions (two million Syrian refugees alone), can rest easy. His friend, Putin, has morphed into our friend, which provides Assad with protection.

Look, I have no idea how any of this will turn out – just as I had no idea one month ago how in no time flat Putin would whistle and Obama would come. But what I do know is this. For the moment at least, Putin has been elevated and Obama denigrated. Not a pretty picture.

The turnout was low. The chances of him ultimately winning the election are zero. There will not be another contest like this one for years. And the city in which the drama played out was Moscow, the most liberal, if this word even applies, in Russia.

But Alexsei Navalny’s campaign for mayor was a stunner. It was the first serious challenge in many months to the autocracy of Vladimir Putin. And though he did not of course win, Navalny managed nevertheless to capture a remarkable 30 percent of the votes cast. (The final figure remains to be determined – if it ever will.) Moreover the story is not yet over. Exactly how this will all play out – in the near and far term – remains to be seen.

This much, though, we know for sure. First, that Navalny is now indisputable leader of the Russian opposition. Second, that Putin is scared of Navalny – scared to jail him on trumped up charges lest people (lots of people) protest. (Navalny was recently sentenced to five years in prison, only to be mysteriously released the next day.) And third, that the only way for Putin to keep a lid on the situation is to continue to walk that fine line between menace and promise.

I have been writing about Navalny for years, since he began his public life as a fly in Putin’s ointment. He came, in other words, out of nowhere, an ordinary if remarkably intrepid man who first made his mark as a particularly bold blogger, understanding early on that even in repressive Russia social media could create change. And now he’s evolved, from a follower (without power, authority, or influence) into leader (with,some power and some influence) – a daredevil leader at that, primed to take on a man who would like nothing so much as to throw him in jail and toss away the key.

Barack Obama is not the only one who’s had a bad week. Leaders across the board and around the world were under attack. This is not new – it’s the way things now are. But every now and then some single thing happens to remind us yet again, and in no uncertain terms, that leaders in 21st century America are contending with forces that are as powerful as they are new.

In this case I’m talking about leaders in business, specifically about chief executive officers who increasingly are being blindsided by those euphemistically called “activist investors” or, if you prefer, “shareholder activists.”

In the old days, CEOs and their largely handpicked boards were left largely alone to run their businesses as they saw fit. This held true even when times were tough, when the business was performing poorly. And it held true even if management was doing badly, if individual executives including those at the top were not up to the task. In other words, other than government, there has been no outside force, no entity organized enough and forceful enough, to challenge those on the highest rungs of the corporate ladder.

Among other reasons, unlike voters, who are relatively easy to organize, shareholders in large numbers are not. Even those among us who hold stocks do not typically pay much if any attention to how the companies that we own in part are run. We don’t understand the business. We don’t know who else is a shareholder. We are far flung and have zero sense of community. And we have no conception that our vote on any given individual or issue will make a difference.

This is not to say that the average shareholder has no voice at all. In fact on line technologies are slowly being employed to, for example, connect with and rally other shareholders, get people to participate in annual meetings, coordinate proxy votes, and complain loudly if not necessarily effectively about company policies, including executive compensation. Still, so far this approach has been scatter-shot, effective only infrequently – which explains why leaders in the private sector are still relatively free to lead as they see fit. (That is, leaders in the private sector are free to lead as they see fit – relative to leaders in the public sector.)

But when the Wall Street Journal’s main front page headline screams “Activist Storms Microsoft Board”, as it did just a few days ago, you can reasonably conclude that something’s afoot (August 31/September 1). Just a few days earlier Microsoft’s CEO, Steve Ballmer, had announced that he was stepping down. And now this! Now Microsoft was being obliged effectively to put on its board (late this year or early next) a hedge fund investor claiming to represent many other investors, all of whom were unhappy with the company’s recent performance. We need not lose sleep over Microsoft – it’s sitting on a pile of money and its business is healthy enough. But its stock price has languished, it has not been considered especially innovative, and now there is the new question of management succession.

The story of the assault on Microsoft’s management would not be so big if it were not indicative of a larger trend – but it is. Increasingly activists with huge war chests are taking on companies large and small – including blue-chip companies such as Procter & Gamble and Pepsico – which is why we can say the playing field has changed. Again, leaders, here CEOs, are getting weaker and followers, here shareholder activists with deep pockets and plenty of moxie, but no formal authority, are getting stronger.

As a result of the threats by outsiders, CEOs are being forced to play defense. They are taking activist investors more seriously. They are monitoring their shares for signs of an activist threat. They are hiring advisers when insurgent investors emerge. And, as the New York Times notes, they are willing to compromise, for example to offer a board seat or two, to try to avoid a bloody battle for control. As one hedge fund manager put it, “Companies are trying to engage with the activists early, below the radar, so that things don’t have to bubble up to the surface and become public, which is extremely disruptive to the company.” (New York Times, August 31.)

Another example of the end of leadership – at least as we have known it.

Dolly Madison, wife of the fourth president of the United States, James Madison, served as First Lady from 1809-1817. She is famous even now for her political savvy, social grace, and tireless hospitality.

For most of this nation’s history these last two attributes – social grace and hospitality in a First Lady – were considered icing on the cake. Nice if you can get them, but not in any way important. In fact, the term “First Lady” is itself something of an anachronism – it persists for reasons of tradition and the lack of something clearly better. Moreover in a time when women in many ways outstrip men, the very idea that the first function of a First Lady is to support her husband smacks of condescension.

But is it out of line or politically incorrect to insist that along with the privileges of being a First Lady, come responsibilities? Is it out of line or politically incorrect to insist that among these responsibilities is lightening the president’s load, making him better at what he does, supporting him politically as well as personally where he most needs it?

Not very First Lady is exemplary. In recent American history various First Ladies – Jacqueline Kennedy, Lady Bird Johnson, Pat Nixon, Betty Ford, Rosalynn Carter, Barbara Bush, Hillary Clinton and Laura Bush – had their different strengths and weaknesses. Some were memorably effective, others eminently forgettable. The point is that the best among them were those who complemented their husbands – and compensated for their weaknesses.

This brings me to Michelle Obama. She is in several ways a standout. She is consistently ranked among America’s most admired women. She has become an icon of style – her hair, her attire, and the shape of her body all objects to be emulated. And she has devoted herself to good causes, most prominently military families, healthy eating, and childhood obesity. Additionally, from all we can tell she and her husband are deeply devoted to each other, and to their two daughters, and to traditional family values. So what’s to complain about?

This brings me to what Ms. Obama is not. She is not a First Lady who compensates for her husband’s glaring political weakness – introversion, a deep reluctance to be social for the sake of political expediency. (See my earlier blog, “The High Price of Social Distance.”) I recognize that there is debate about how important it is for presents to be inter-personally skilled, to be ingratiating, and to extend themselves to other political players, at home and abroad. But my own position is now and has long been clear. (See my earlier book, The Political Presidency: Practice of Leadership.) I have always thought that given America’s political culture and structure, in order for presidents successfully to lead they would have to be personally as well as political persuasive. This has always been true and, given the exigencies of leadership in the 21st century, it is now even more powerful a point.

Trouble is that neither Barack nor Michelle Obama seems to understand this. They are now what they always were: outsiders in Washington, in spite of their having resided in the White House now for over five years. The president never was disposed to chew the fat with fellow politicians, or to play golf with other than his own buddies. And the First Lady never was disposed to play the role of Dolly Madison, to use the White House as a resource, to play the part of hostess, even if for the sole purpose of being politically as well as personally supportive of her husband.

What’s involved is a two step process. Step number one is for husband and wife, president and First Lady, to understand, to appreciate the political importance of being personally ingratiating, of making friends to influence people. Step number two is for husband and wife, president and First Lady, to do what needs to be done in order to make such ingratiation more likely, not less.

Given Barack Obama’s personal proclivities, Michelle Obama would have done well to take a page from Dolly Madison’s playbook – to play hostess from day one, gladly, frequently, to throw open the White House doors to friend and foe alike. This traditional feminine role is not in any way demeaning or dated. To the contrary, when self interest is at stake, it’s simply savvy to embrace it.

Note: Sometimes “Dolly” is spelled “Dolley.”

It’s obvious that President Barack Obama read my blog posted this morning, “The High Cost of Social Distance.”

In consequence, he announced several hours later that he would try to exercise influence. He would try to persuade members of Congress that they should formally authorize him to use “force” in Syria.

Better late than never.

Walter Russell Mead recently argued that the Obama administration made five big miscalculations about the Middle East. It misread the political maturity of Islamist politicians. It misread the political situation in Egypt. It misread the impact of its strategy both on Israel and Saudi Arabia. It failed to grasp the new dynamics of terrorist movements. And it underestimated the costs of doing nothing in Syria. (Wall Street Journal, August 24-25, 2013).

To this list of five items I would add a sixth. In an era in which “foreign policy leadership” is almost an oxymoron, Obama misread the importance of cultivating allies. He misread the importance of cultivating allies not only abroad but at home. As a result, now, when he and his foreign policy team have finally decided they want to intervene in Syria – likely a limited strike – they stand alone. Conspicuously few abroad and conspicuously few at home are willing to stand in support of the administration.

In my last blog on this subject – “Leadership and Followership in Foreign Affairs” – I wrote the American foreign policy establishment does not get the necessity of deviating from previous conceptions of leadership in foreign affairs. “Leadership at the international level has little to do now either with power or authority. To the degree it can be exercised at all it is about influence – a different sort of skill set altogether.” (August 16th.) Even since then it became blindingly clear just how miserably the White House has failed this particular test. It has failed to understand that in order to accomplishing anything at all in the Middle East, without having to pay dearly politically, the U. S. must have the support of most if not all of these four constituencies: 1) its putative allies in the Middle East; 2) its putative allies elsewhere in the world; 3) the American Congress; and 4) the American people.

Ironically, Obama has replicated at the international level his failure at the national level. For all his intelligence and intermittent charm, he has failed to capture hearts and minds. He has failed to exercise influence. Or, more precisely, he has failed even to try to exercise influence, which with regard to Syria, he would have had to do years ago, when it became readily apparent it was a powder keg.

• In a region roiled in turmoil, the United States has few if any reliable allies (other than Israel), and none in open support of a military strike in Syria.
• In a world in which America’s allies are dwindling both in number and resolve, none of the usual suspects stands behind the American president. This week even British Prime Minister David Cameron was reduced by the House of Commons to saying that on the issue of a Syrian strike, he could do nothing to his great friend, Barack Obama.
• Members of Congress have lived up to their reputations. Most are critical of the American president and against his doing anything in Syria without congressional approval. But, at the same time, they show no signs of returning to Washington before their vacations are over to bestow on Obama their blessing or, for that matter, to withhold it.
• By an overwhelming majority – 80 percent – the American people do not want Barack Obama to lift a finger in Syria without Congressional approval.

What Obama will ultimately do in consequence of this mortifying lack of support for what he now wants and intends, is at this moment an open question. What is settled is his disinterest in making friends and influencing people – a trait that has cost him dearly.