Leading from behind

From Hoosierman's previous post:

France, Norway, & Italy Try Leading From Behind

More NATO nations have followed Obama's "leading from behind" policy in the Libyan civil war. France announced today that its aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle would return home for maintenance next week from Libya, but insisted there would be no respite for Moamer Gadhafi. The Charles de Gaulle is the largest aircraft carrier in Europe and France's only aircraft carrier. The ship is to under go extensive maintenance and repairs and the French note it has been engaged since March. So much for long term commitments. The announcement comes only one day after Norway withdrew its 4 remaining F16's. Last month Italy withdrew its only aircraft carrier the Garibaldi. Tuning their expectations to reality, the United States, Britain, and France have withdrawn their demand that Gadhafi leave Libya, only that he cede power. Obama stated at the outset that Gadhafi "must go" and the action would take "days not weeks". By brushing aside the Constitution in a display of implacable arrogance, and losing the mission in a demonstration of monumental ineptitude Obama has simultaneously diminished both US foreign policy and our respect for the Constitution. Come on election day!

  Stanley Kurtz deals with the whole "leading from behind" concept, which I initially thought was more of a joke than anything else.
  Kurtz, who has written a book on Barack Obama and was subsequently ignored and then attacked, says that this is actually an Alinskyite tactic:

Alinskyite organizers are tough when facing down the “enemy” (their word), but subtle, stealthy, and incremental when dealing with the members of their own group. Above all, they are never openly ideological. Everything is portrayed as pragmatism.

The trouble with Obama’s Alinskyite leadership style is that he’s trying to adapt it to the presidency, a role it was never designed for. When he tries classic Alinskyite polarization, he’s treating people he’s supposed to be leading as his enemies. When he tries to bring about leftist results under the guise of a neutral pragmatism, he disappoints his base, which desperately wants him to turn his eloquence to the task of persuading the country of their principles. 

  Kurtz says that the problem is that this tactic was never intended for the presidency, which requires independent thought and leadership skills.
  But then, what did we expect from a man who voted "present" on so many difficult bills?