Why is the United States so quiet on the Jasmine Revolutions?

Well, the so-called Jasmine Revolutions are still rolling through the Middle East, and are lapping at the shores of Asia. Tunisia and Egypt have thrown off their decades-long dictators, and countries like Bahrain and Libya are struggling to do the same. Even Iran and Yemen are seeing mass demonstrations against tyranny. And yet, the United States has remained relatively silent. We have engaged the conflicts only after the victors are clear or the attacks on demonstrators are so monstrous that they can not be ignored. How is it that the country that regards Freedom and Liberty more highly than any other, has so little to say?

My best guess is that or leaders - primarily President Obama - is thinking one of these thoughts:
1. We're hated in the Middle East, so our support may hurt more than it helps.
2. We've supported too many Middle East Tyrants to credibly support democracy.
3. We can't afford to send money or troops, so we won't support with words.
4. These revolutions have nothing to do with America.

Unfortunately, all of these thoughts are incredibly cynical. Especially when we're lead by a man who campaigned on "Hope" and "Change". Hope and Change are coming to the Middle East. I'd rather we go down in history as standing with them, than standing on the sidelines.

What is more important, ideas or leadership ability?

This race is not over yet. Not by a long shot, no matter what the day-to-day polls say. John McCain has made a career out of comebacks in the final seconds of the political game. But still, I think it is wise to look at the implications of an Obama win.

During my ruminations, I came across this video about an interview with Obama. It is NOT the interview, just one reporter's thought ABOUT the interview. It talks about Obama's character and not his ideas - his thoughtfulness, his seriousness, and his decisiveness. And it raised a question for me. What is more important in a president - a leader in general - his (or her) ideas or their ability to lead?

Of course, to a point, this is a foolish question, because any "good" leader will lead people in the direction s/he wants to go in. But if we look deeper, it is important. Ronald Reagan lead strongly and united a world against Communism - the great threat of his time - despite the fact that his ideas were at odds with much of America. Bill Clinton lead America to a balanced budget and economic prosperity, despite ideas which might have saddled us with massive new entitlements instead. George W. Bush has changed America, but his finest moments were not around an ideological speech, but rather around his responses to 9/11 and his leading America in the days following.

This gives me hope for an Obama presidency. If he truly can lead and unite us, he may be a man who can unite and lead to great things, even if I believe his ideas are wrong. A united American can do great things, even in hard time - especially in hard times. Perhaps having the character of a leader is the most important thing. What do Mod-Bloggers think?