All presidents take their share of lumps and tough breaks from the unpredictable nature of things in the world. Criticism, fair or not, is as much apart of the office of the presidency as Air Force One. President Obama is no different and has received his share. Considering healthcare and the hyper-partisan and corrupt way the debate was handled, his Department of Justice and its race baiting chief, Eric Holder, the economy and the associated stimulus, the several gaffes and political miscalculations; furthermore, holding the presidency during a time in which Americans view the country as divided and politics more partisan than ever before, President Obama has remained relatively popular. However, his total detachment or disinterest, or both, in what has gone on in Libya, and Egypt before that, and Iran even before that, is starting to make Obama look indecisive and unwilling to make tough executive decisions.

Certainly one could argue that President Obama is on the same side as the majority of Americans in not calling for a No-Fly Zone in Libya. I am in that camp myself. Not because I am anti-military action or American strength abroad, I am anti-dealing with and assisting the schizophrenic Middle East. President Obama’s predicament though is something different. He called for the Gadaffi to step down and, then later, ramped up the rhetoric and said he must go. To quote the President during his campaign, “Don’t tell me that words don’t matter.” They do matter and as President of the United States they matter a great deal. When a president fells to follow-up and act according to those words, he looks weak, unsure, and ineffective. If the president wanted to stay out of the fray and let Europe handle the matter, since Libya is in their backyard, fair enough than; but he should have stated his case exactly like that and carried on like a president.

Express UK | BARACK OBAMA: THE WEAKEST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY?

Obama’s campaign slogan was mesmerisingly simple and brimming with self-belief: “Yes we can.” His presidency, however, is turning out to be more about “no we won’t.” Even more worryingly, it seems to be very much about: “Maybe we can… do what, exactly?” The world feels like a dangerous place when leaders are seen to lack certitude but the only thing President Obama seems decisive about is his indecision. What should the US do about Libya? What should the US do about the Middle East in general? What about the country’s crippling debts? What is the US going to do about Afghanistan, about Iran?

What is President Obama doing about anything? The most alarming answer – your guess is as good as mine – is also, frankly, the most accurate one. What the President is not doing is being clear, resolute and pro-active, which is surely a big part of his job description. This is what he has to say about the popular uprising in Libya: “Gaddafi must go.” At least, that was his position on March 3.

Since then, other countries – most notably Britain and France – have been calling for some kind of intervention. Even the Arab League, a notoriously conservative organisation, has declared support for sanctions. But from the White House has come only the blah-blah of bland statements filled with meaningless expressions and vague phrases. Of decisive action and leadership – even of clearly defined opinion – there is precious little sign.

What is the Obama administration’s position on the protests in the Gulf island state of Bahrain, which the authorities there are savagely suppressing with the help of troops shipped in from Saudi Arabia? What is the White House view on the alarming prospect of the unrest spreading to Saudi Arabia itself? Who knows? Certainly not the American people, nor the leaders of nations which would consider themselves allies of America.

So you can pretty much draw your own conclusions from a few press reports that Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and the president aren’t seeing eye-to-eye on foreign policy. And when the president’s secretary of state is seen as more effective than the president, that is a very troubling sign for Obama’s presidency. Think of Nixon and Kissinger for a very good model. Kissinger’s headline grabbing ways infuriated the jealous Nixon. If Watergate had not broken wide open, the chances are that Nixon would have fired Kissinger.

Clinton is said to be especially peeved with the president’s waffling over how to encourage the kinds of Arab uprisings that have recently toppled regimes in Egypt and Tunisia, and in particular his refusal to back a no-fly zone over Libya.

In the past week, former President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton’s former top adviser Anne-

Marie Slaughter lashed out at Obama for the same reason.

The tension has even spilled over into her dealings with European diplomats, with whom she met early this week.

When French president Nicolas Sarkozy urged her to press the White House to

take more aggressive action in Libya, Clinton repeatedly replied only, “There are difficulties,” according to Foreign Policy magazine.

“Frankly we are just completely puzzled,” one of the diplomats told Foreign

Policy magazine. “We are wondering if this is a priority for the United States.”

Or as the insider described Obama’s foreign policy shop: “It’s amateur night.”

Certainly it is no great revelation that Clinton said she will not serve a second term as secretary of state. Her choice is historically in line with many who have held her position and decided to move on after one term. However, because of how the events have happened, the criticism President Obama has faced for “dithering” and Clinton’s media perception that she is driving foreign policy for the administration is making President Obama look like an ineffectual world leader. Nonetheless, according to press reports the White House is in full reelection campaign mode and they are planning to pull out all the stops for their chief. They better be. Because now, Obama is headed towards a one term presidency.