In a March 31 Wall Street Journal column, Karl Rove called President Obama “irresolute, weak and unreliable, even when doing the right thing” in his approach to the crisis in Libya.

Rove further claimed that Obama “insisted the operation's command would move swiftly from America to NATO, to give the appearance of transferring the mission to a multinational body” but that Obama “didn't remind the country that NATO is commanded by an American ... [s]o the baton has been handed from an American general to an American admiral.” Later, Rove attacked Obama as “a chief executive who is willing America into a subordinate, non-leadership role in world affairs, who sees the United States as an ordinary nation.”

From Rove's column:

While the president's speech on Libya was adequate at times, what stood out were statements that were contradictory, confusing and outright untrue.

Mr. Obama said “an important strategic interest” was at risk in Libya. I believe that's so. But members of Mr. Obama's national security team send the opposite message.

The president insisted that America “took a series of swift steps in a matter of days.” In fact, the administration dithered for over two weeks. Mr. Obama claimed, “At my direction, America led an effort” to create “a no-fly zone . . . to protect the Libyan people.” In truth, the direction and leadership came from the French, the British, and even the Arab League. Thank goodness French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister David Cameron had the brass to push for bombing. Otherwise Mr. Obama still might be contemplating action, not taking it.

On Monday, the candidate who dismissed a coalition of 40 countries in Iraq became the president celebrating an alliance of only 15 nations operating in Libya. He also insisted the operation's command would move swiftly from America to NATO, to give the appearance of transferring the mission to a multinational body. Mr. Obama didn't remind the country that NATO is commanded by an American, Adm. James Stavridis. So the baton has been handed from an American general to an American admiral.

[...]

The economy will dominate the 2012 presidential election, but national security issues will shape public attitudes about Mr. Obama as well. Issues eventually congeal to create an impression of a president's public character. Mr. Obama's problem is that his handling of foreign policy challenges like Libya adds to his image of weakness. As a general rule, strong leaders get re-elected; weak ones don't.

This is a chief executive who is willing America into a subordinate, non-leadership role in world affairs, who sees the United States as an ordinary nation. This is a potentially toxic political brew for any politician, but most especially for a commander in chief.