Obama et le mythe du leader fort

Obama est, parfois avec raison, critiqué dans une foule de domaines. Depuis l'annonce de sa candidature à l'investiture démocrate, on craint qu'il ne soit pas assez fort pour diriger la politique Étrangère américaine. Encore une fois dans les dossiers ukrainien et russe, ses opposants lui reprochent son manque de vigueur, de "colonne vertébrale". Que devrait faire le Président? Rouler des mécaniques et menacer constamment de recourir à la force armée? Je crois plutôt qu'Obama a une approche plus sage qui est à la mesure des moyen des États-Unis. Dans cet article on compare l'attitude d'Obama à celle de Kennedy pendant la crise des missiles de 1962. Pas bête...

 "What the rest of the world would rather see in the American presidency—and what is in America’s best interest—is not strong leadership but enlightened leadership. Think back to the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, when President John F. Kennedy rejected advice to bomb Soviet ships bound for Cuba and to destroy the missile sites that had been constructed there. Although the United States ultimately convinced the Soviet Union to withdraw its nuclear missiles from the island, the Americans also made concessions, promising they would not attempt to remove the Castro regime by force and pledging to withdraw American missiles from Turkey. As part of the settlement, it was agreed that this latter concession would not be publicized. It would, moreover, occur after an interval just long enough to suggest that it was not a concession to Soviet demands. So while the myth was that only Khrushchev had blinked, in reality Kennedy had been sensible enough to blink too, rather than risk catastrophic nuclear war. This was enlightened leadership; Kennedy won the public relations battle, but the agreement the Americans and the Soviets hammered out was a genuine compromise."

  http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/04/barack-obama-and-the-myth-of-the-strong-leader-105961.html?hp=pm_1#.U1p_nvl5PAw