Where best American leadership?

On 12 December, President Obama stated, "“In the past seven years, we’ve transformed the United States into the global leader in fighting climate change." Regardless of one's opinion about climate change, the larger issue is one of American leadership, particularly as viewed by our country's chief executive. Of where best to invest in and wield that leadership. The president's statement speaks volumes to this critical matter.

Saying "we've transformed" states rather emphatically his position. Specifically, that he did not and does not see the role of America to lead in international security matters, a plank in both of his campaigns. He set about to reduce (transform if you will) American leadership in this area, as seen in his decision to lead from behind in his failed approach to Libya. Thus, his views require transformation away from being a nation that leads the world in international security matters, yielding to others who might seek this role. A dangerous abdication of the historic international role America has played, most notably in WWI and WWII, as well as during the post WWII era of the Soviet Union's expansionist aspirations. Certainly, this role was poorly played when the nation reached too far by seeking to nation build, leading to negative results in Vietnam and Iraq, as well as smaller proxy wars. But American international security leadership has been more positive than negative. However, Obama sought the presidency determined to transform the country and its place amongst the nations of the world.

Stating "fighting climate change" is also an emphatic declaration of his position. Since words matter, "fighting" is very telling. He could have said "counter," "correct," "resolve," or even simply "fix." He sees climate change as an adversary worthy of engaging to defeat. Whether or not you accept his position, or whether or not you believe the agreement will change our climate, or whether or not you believe the other nations will actually abide by the agreement is immaterial to understanding Obama's views on American leadership.

By his words and actions, it is clear he does not see America as the world's leader in matters regarding international security. So it follows that he does not see international security as a threat worthy of his concern. His responses to questions from the media in the wake of the Paris terrorist attacks were exceptionally telling. Media from around the world were looking to the American president to take the lead in this international matter. But he did not. And taking a look at his action of the past seven years provides clear and convincing examples of his views in this arena, with the Iranian nuclear agreement being the most startling example.

So here we are, with a president proud of transforming American leadership from international security to one climate change. At a time multiple threats are visiting death and carnage across the world. At a time the threat to the American homeland is rising. At a time American influence is waining across the globe. At a time of immense excessive federal government spending driving up extraordinary debt, threatening the entire national economy.

The unasked question is why not do both, lead in climate change and international security? It was not a zero sum endeavor. Why not add climate change leadership to the mantle of responsibility for international security?

If a nuclear weapon is employed by North Korea or Iran or some non-state actor, what does Obama think will happen? What reactions would he forecast? And what of the influence on the climate of these action? What of the impact on the American economy? What happens when another 9/11 level attack occurs in the homeland? What of the growing influence and, dare it be said, leadership of a resurgent Russia in the middle east? What if the Islamist threat takes control of the petroleum assets in the middle east? What about the aggressive posture of China in the western Pacific region?

How does Obama's transformed United States leadership prepare us in the face of threats to international security? If something tragic occurs, will it be said he made wise decisions on where to invest in and wield American leadership?