The following passage is from today's David Brooks column in the New York Times:They [military experts] do not know if he [President Obama] possesses the trait that is more important than intellectual sophistication and, in fact, stands in tension with it. They do not know if he possesses tenacity, the ability to fixate on a simple conviction and grip it, viscerally and unflinchingly, through complexity and confusion. They do not know if he possesses the obstinacy that guided Lincoln and Churchill, and which must guide all war presidents to some degree.David Brooks is a very talented columnist whose work is almost always cerebral and serious, which makes this column even more troubling. Does Brooks really think that "tenacity" is "in tension" with "intellectual sophistication?" Does he really see Presidents Bush and Obama as "war presidents" in the same way that Lincoln and Churchill were leaders of nations at war? Are we to believe that the American Civil War and World War II, wars that threatened the very existence of the nations led by Lincoln and Churchill, are even remotely analogous to present conflicts?
Lincoln and Churchill represent intellectual sophistication in the face of an imminent existential threat. Maybe President Kennedy's efforts during the Cuban missile crisis could be included in this category? The present situation, however, is not an imminent existential threat and the idea that Churchillian tenacity is required is what motivated President George W. Bush.
Need I say more?