One of my favorite blogs is NRO’s The Tank. Writing yesterday, Gregory S. McNeal, a law professor and retired Army officer, pens a sharp and damning critique of Obama’s poor leadership qualities. McNeal makes the case that not only has Obama never actually led anything, but that when he’s had opportunities to provide leadership, he’s failed miserably.

The theme that is emerging here is an Obama who is quite an effective politician, but whose calculating political maneuvering is impacting his credibility. His inconsistencies are also calling into question his decision-making. What we are beginning to see is someone who lacks sufficient time in any position and who is always looking to the next political accomplishment (remember that 2 years 12 days in the Senate). As a consequence of that political ambition, he lacks the core judgment to make principled non-political decisions and he lacks the humility to know when he should accept the advice of those with more experience. Obama can give great motivating speeches, but when the shroud of generalties and bombast is stripped away, his inexperienced core is revealed. The fact that the wheels are starting to come off the Obama campaign wagon in July, rather than October, is a blessing for the McCain campaign (consider the Newsweek poll) and is probably a reason why the Obama campaign ran away from town hall meetings. They know their candidate can’t “take the heat” (thanks to HRC for that one). The recent debate over Obama’s changing, contradictory, and politically motivated positions on Iraq and Afghanistan highlight his inexperience, his poltical opportunism, and his arrogance.

McNeal points specifically to Obama’s role as chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on European Affairs:

He could have sponsored bills supporting the troops (something he opposed), and he could have held hearings (he didn’t). As chairman of the United States Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on European Affairs, he could have held hearings about Afghanistan and our NATO allies. In fact, given his dearth of leadership experience, one would think Obama would have embraced his one chance to lead. Hearings would have provided him with some valuable information from true experts on the conflict and the region and would have signaled his personal interest and the interest of the Senate in conducting oversight regarding foreign affairs in this critical area of the world. Moreover, it would have demonstrated his willingness to listen to the opinions of others before making early and ill-informed political decisions.

McNeal concludes with a critique of Obama’s actions over the last few days:

Which brings us to the developments of the last two days. Obama has shown that his inconsistent policies and his lack of leadership in the Senate were not isolated events but are symptomatic of his political ambition and his unwillingness to place the good of the country over his own political gain. These aren’t “flip-flops”; these are political calculations born of inexperience and arrogance. It is clear that Obama will say whatever he must to win and he’ll do so with no desire to actually learn the facts surrounding his “policies.” He opposed the surge in Iraq, and once the surge was successful he began to purge his website of his prior statements. He arrogantly wrote a plan for withdrawal from Iraq without even considering whether that plan would work.

Are these just leadership questions? No. When Bill Bradley became one of the first prominant democrats to break from the Clintons and endorse Obama, he cited Obama’s judgement. The Obama’s recent decisions (see Brandenberg Gate speech) and his changing narrative on the war the last are faulty judgement on display. This combined with an inablity to lead aren’t characteristics America can have in its presidents. Certainly not now. But not at any time.