I was thoroughly glad to see the era of George W. Bush come to an end. He had, I believed, become a terrible liability for America–in both foreign and domestic policy.
In foreign affairs, America had become entrapped in a totally needless war in Iraq. And by authorizing the use of torture, he had turned the United States into a pariah nation in the eyes of much of the civilized world.
Domestically, he had allowed the sheer greed and arrogance of America’s most powerful corporations to push the nation to the brink of bankruptcy.
So during the early weeks of President Barack Obama’s first term, I sent him a gift: My favorite selections from the two major works of Niccolo Machiavelli: The Prince and The Discourses.
Niccolo Machiavelli
I hoped that, on at least some occasions, the new President would find useful advice in the wisdom of the father of political science.
Unfortunately, such has not been the case.
For example:
United Nations officials estimate that more than 6,000 people have died in Syria since fighting erupted in 2011 against the regime of dictator Bashir al-Assad.
During that time, the world made no move to intervene–for a series of excellent reasons. Among these:
- Since 1979, Syria has been listed by the U.S. State Department as a sponsor of terrorism.
- There are no “good Syrians” for the United States to support. There is a civil war between rival terrorist groups.
- Among these: Hezbollah and Hamas (pro-Assad); and Al Qaeda (anti-Assad).
This was the position of the United States as well.
Meanwhile, President Obama said on several occasions that if Assad used chemical weapons against his enemies, that would be “a red line in the sand.”
Then, on August 21, the Assad regime was accused of using chemical weapons in Damascus suburbs to kill more than 1,400 civilians.
On August 30, the Obama administration said it had “high confidence” that Syria’s government carried out the chemical weapons attack.
Having boxed himself in, Obama felt he had to make good on his threat–even if it risked the lives of those flying combat missions over Syria’s formidable air defenses.
He sent Secretary of State John Kerry before TV cameras to express America’s moral outrage at Syria’s use of chemical weapons.
And he positioned six American warships close to the Syrian coast.
On August 31, Obama announced that he would seek Congressional authorization before attacking Syria. Obama said he was “prepared to give that order” to strike Syria because:
- Syria’s use of chemical weapons “risks making a mockery of the global prohibition on the use of chemicals weapons,” and
- It put U.S. regional allies that share a border with Syria in danger.
It looked as though the United States was about to plunge into its third Middle East war in 12 years.
Then Russian President Vladimir Putin offered his own suggestion for averting war: Syria would agree to put its stocks of chemical weapons under United Nations control.
On September 14, the United States and Russia announced in Geneva that they reached a deal that provided a path for Obama to avoid the air strikes he had promised to launch against Syria.
Suddenly, Obama asked congressional leaders to delay votes on authorizing military action in Syria while the diplomatic process worked itself out.
As “Tonight” show host Jay Leno put it: Obama gave a speech calling for war–and then the rebuttal.
So what does Niccolo Machiavelli have to do with any of this?
In Chapter 19 of The Prince, his guide to successful rulership, he outlines “That We Must Avoid Being Despised and Hated.”
“The prince must…avoid those things which will make him hated or despised. And whenever he succeeds in this, he will have done his part, and will find no danger in other vices….
“He is rendered despicable by being thought changeable, frivolous, effeminate, timid and irresolute—which a prince must guard against as a rock of danger….
“[He] must contrive that his actions show grandeur, spirit, gravity and fortitude. As to the government of his subjects, let his sentence be irrevocable, and let him adhere to his decisions so that no one may think of deceiving or cozening him.”
By making a vigorous case for going to war with Syria, and then suddenly reversing himself, Obama has managed to offend everyone:
- Right-wingers–who hoped to see America plunge into another Middle East war.
- Liberals–who didn’t want to repeat the 2003 Iraqi war disaster.
- Syrian rebels–who expected a full-scale American intervention to bring them to power.
- The Assad regime–which no doubt believes Obama was bluffing.
Unfortunately, history is not a VHS tape that can be rewound. No one–including Obama–gets a second chance to make a first impression.
By repeatedly showing timidity toward Republicans, Obama had forfeited credibility as a leader to be feared by his domestic Right-wing enemies.
President Theodore Roosevelt famously said: “I have always lived by a South African proverb: Speak softly and carry a big stick, and you will go far.”
By speaking loudly and then putting his big stick aside, Obama forfeited credibility among his foreign enemies.
Bureaucracybuster's Blog 
ADOLF HITLER, BOOKS, BUSINESS LEADERSHIP, CEOS, CNN, CORPORATIONS, ENGLAND, ERICH VON MANSTEIN, ERWIN ROMMEL, FACEBOOK, FRANCE, HEINZ GUDERIAN, HOW HITLER COULD HAVE WON WORLD WAR II, JOSEPH STALIN, LABOR DAY, LOS ANGELES TIMES, NAZI GERMANY, NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI, SOVIET UNION, THE DISCOURSES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, WORLD WAR 11, WORLD WAR ii
IS THERE A HITLER IN YOUR CEO?
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Social commentary on September 2, 2013 at 12:01 amEach Labor Day, American politicians offer lip-service tribute to those millions of American workers who make corportate profits a reality.
But no one ever says anything about those over-pampered, over-paid CEOs who all too often take credit for the work done by those millions of American workers.
Too many CEOs have–consciously or not–patterened themselves after the ultimate CEO: Adolf Hitler.
Ever since he shot himself in his underground Berlin bunker on April 30, 1945, historians have fiercely debated: Was der Fuehrer a military genius or an imbecile?
With literally thousands of titles to choose, the average reader may feel overwhelmed. But if you’re looking for an understandable, overall view of Hitler’s generalship, an excellent choice would be How Hitler Could Have Won World War II by Bevin Alexander.
Among “the fatal errors that led to Nazi defeat” (as proclaimed on the book jacket) were:
As the war turned increasingly against him, Hitler became ever more rigid in his thinking. He demanded absolute control over the smallest details of his forces. This, in turn, led to astounding and needless losses in German soldiers.
One such incident was immortalized in the 1962 movie, The Longest Day, about the Allied invasion of France known as D-Day.
On June 6, 1944, Rommel ordered the panzer tanks to drive the Allies from the Normandy beaches. But these could not be released except on direct order of the Fuehrer.
As Hitler’s chief of staff, General Alfred Jodl, informed Rommel: The Fuehrer was asleep–and, no, he, Jodl, would not wake him.
By the time Hitler awoke and issued the order, it was too late.
Nor could he accept responsibility for the policies that were clearly leading Germany to certain defeat. Hitler blamed his generals, accused them of cowardice, and relieved many of the best ones from command.
Among those sacked was Heinz Guderian, creator of the German panzer corps–and thus responsible for its highly effective “blitzkrieg” campaign against France in 1940.
Heinz Guderian
Another was Erich von Manstein, designer of the strategy that defeated France in six weeks–something Germany couldn’t do during the four years of World War 1.
Erich von Manstein
Finally, on April 29, 1945–with the Russians only blocks from his underground bunker in Berlin–Hitler dictated his “Last Political Testament.” Once again, he refused to accept responsibility for unleashing a war that would ultimately consume 50 million lives:
“It is untrue that I or anyone else in Germany wanted war in 1939. It was desired and instigated exclusively by those international statesmen who either were of Jewish origin or worked for Jewish interests.”
Hitler had launched the war with a lie–that Poland had attacked Germany, rather than vice versa. And he closed the war–and his life–with a final lie.
All of which, once again, brings us back to Niccolo Machiavelli, the father of political science.
In his classic book, The Discourses, he wrote at length on the best ways to maintain liberty within a republic. In Book Three, Chapter 31, Machiavelli declares: “Great Men and Powerful Republics Preserve an Equal Dignity and Courage in Prosperity and Adversity.”
It is a chapter that Adolf Hitler would have done well to read.
“…A truly great man is ever the same under all circumstances. And if his fortune varies, exalting him at one moment and oppressing him at another, he himself never varies, but always preserves a firm courage, which is so closely interwoven with his character that everyone can readily see that the fickleness of fortune has no power over him.
“The conduct of weak men is very different. Made vain and intoxicated by good fortune, they attribute their success to merits which they do not possess, and this makes them odious and insupportable to all around them.
“And when they have afterwards to meet a reverse of fortune, they quickly fall into the other extreme, and become abject and vile.
“Thence it comes that princes of this character think more of flying in adversity than of defending themselves, like men who, having made a bad use of prosperity, are wholly unprepared for any defense against reverses.”
Stay alert to signs of such character flaws among your own business colleagues–and especially your superiors. They are the warning signs of a future catastrophe.
Share this: