Being an international leader: surrendering as a step towards peace

Some might say that my model of leadership is flawed. Not that I’m not good at manipulating the media, the public and even friends. But some, like Dr. Cornell West, think that I lack a backbone. 

There may be some truth to this perception in my role as an international leader.  But this needs some explanation since this is counterintuitive.



I am able, in a limited way, to mirror Machiavelli’s and Sun Tzu's Art of War. I've used drones to kill lots of scoundrels, but I haven't backed up my drawing a red line against Syria's Assad using chemical weapons on his own population, or opposing Russia's invasion of Crimea, or only putting in a minimal number of ground troops to defeat ISIL, and the like.

I'm even giving up control of the internet and allowing in authoritarian governments to share control of the web – even if they plan on abusing their own people.

But there's a reason for my tepid approach to imposing American standards of behavior on other countries and other cultures. 

Machiavelli and Sun Tzu lived at a less complicated time – less technology of war, no nuclear weapons, no internet, no mass transportation, no problem with human caused global warming. 

Here's the way I came to my way of seeing my role of international leadership:  It is important to give in and surrender in order to get peace. Surrendering is a way to inner peace; and it ultimately is the same way towards peace with others. It may only be a baby step towards peace, but that is far better than puffing up and beating my chest in an attempt to stare down warmongers.

To reiterate, I never wanted to be a war president. I’d rather lead from behind that confront someone like Putin. I have no problem confronting a Republican or someone from FOX news, but not someone who might make me use more than a drone or two.

Is this a terrible admission? 

I don’t think so and here’s why. The U.S. can afford to lose some international power. The next president can make up for that. 

My approach to national leadership is, of course, is very different.