From Iraq to Kosovo, and even in Libya the first time around, U.S. presidents have invariably sought to prepare Americans for military engagement with a solemn address from the Oval Office.
They have also worked hard to get Congress onside before launching a foreign attack, even one with supposedly strict humanitarian aims.
Barack Obama did neither before thrusting America into its third concurrent military conflict in a Muslim nation. Instead, after announcing U.S. participation in the mission in Libya, Mr. Obama hopped on Air Force One for a five-day trip to Latin America. It showed just how much the current commander-in-chief has sought to de-emphasize the role that could end up defining his presidency.
Mr. Obama's apparent desire to play down the mission in Libya is consistent with the hands-off approach he has sought to project since the outbreak of the Arab Spring began sowing unrest throughout the Middle East in January.
But it has left Americans and the world grappling to get a handle on the Obama Doctrine – or figure out if it even exists at all. If Mr. Obama is guided by an overriding foreign policy credo, he has kept it to himself.
"The administration realizes it faces a remarkably stark tradeoff between its more idealistic objectives in supporting the Arab Spring and its strategic interests in preventing a spreading of political instability," offered Charles Kupchan, a Georgetown University professor who served on the National Security Council under Bill Clinton. "The 'strategy' in my mind is to rhetorically align with the forces of democracy but essentially to let events take their course."
The cautious approach has provided an opening for Republican presidential contenders to sow doubts about Mr. Obama's ability and willingness to exercise U.S. leadership in global affairs. If the mission in Libya drags on, and regimes in the Middle East continue to teeter, foreign policy could play a much bigger part in the 2012 election than anyone expected.
"I'm not one to be snarky, because we're confronting things we haven't confronted before with that number of regimes facing revolutionary potential," said William Martel, an international security expert at Tufts University in Medford, Mass. "But [the administration's reaction] has really been a sine wave. The message has been all over the place."
By insisting on the role of the multilateral coalition leading Operation Odyssey Dawn to protect civilians from Moammar Gadhafi's forces, Mr. Obama has sought to distance himself from both the conduct and results of what could be an extended imbroglio.
So far, a war-weary American public appears to be at ease with their uncommon commander-in-chief. But it may not last if the NATO-led coalition splinters or Col. Gadhafi hangs on. Mr. Obama will face pressure to act unilaterally to dislodge a leader he has repeatedly insisted "must go."
The administration's obtuse answers to questions about the ultimate aim and leadership of the Libya mission – it insists it is a joint effort, though the United States has overwhelmingly shouldered the responsibility – have exposed Mr. Obama to criticism from Democrats and Republicans alike.
After days of deflecting questions about an Oval Office address, the White House changed course on Friday and announced the President will make a speech on Libya on Monday night at the National Defense University in Washington. The news came shortly after Mr. Obama held a private conference call with congressional leaders to discuss Libya.
Yet, a week into a risky military operation that he himself has launched – rather than inherited – Mr. Obama has yet to tell the nation why it matters. That makes him a very different kind of president.
In 1999, when Bill Clinton authorized U.S. air strikes under a NATO mission to halt Slobodan Milosevic's attacks on ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, he made an Oval Office address the very night the bombing began. So did Ronald Reagan, when he authorized an assault on Libya in retaliation for the 1986 bombing of a Berlin nightclub that was blamed on Col. Gadhafi.
The "mad dog of the Middle East" – as Mr. Reagan called the Libyan strongman – was left standing then. But should Col. Gadhafi survive the current conflict, he could seek revenge on the United States and its allies. Mr. Obama would then undoubtedly face calls to take more drastic action.
Whether he likes it or not, Mr. Obama's presidency risks being consumed for some time by events in the Middle East. And it raises questions about whether Americans will weary of such a reluctant commander-in-chief if instability abroad begins to create anxiety at home.
"We used to relish leading the free world. Now, it's almost like leading the free world is an inconvenience," South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham quipped last Sunday. "The President has caveatted [the Libya mission] way too much."
On Thursday, Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, who is considering a run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, expressed a similar sentiment: "The world has looked to America for leadership. But we haven't provided leadership in this administration. [Its] position has been to say, 'You know, we're just one of the boys.'"
But Mr. Barbour also expressed reservations about U.S. involvement in Libya and the potential for "mission creep" that could further strain the U.S. military, which has about 100,000 troops in Afghanistan and has yet to withdraw all of its soldiers from Iraq.
Former House of Representatives Speaker Newt Gingrich, another GOP contender, indicated he "would not have intervened in Libya." But he added that when Mr. Obama called for Col. Gadhafi's departure, "he put [U.S.] prestige and authority on the line" and failure to secure regime change now would be a "defeat for the United States."
A split between Republican hawks, such as Mr. Graham and Arizona Senator John McCain, and the party's growing isolationist wing could work to Mr. Obama's advantage as he seeks to concentrate on domestic priorities.
"The rise of the Tea Party is symptomatic of this broader inkling among the American public that it's time to focus on the home front," noted Georgetown's Prof. Kupchan, who is also a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. "It's new in that you now have a vocal constituency within the Republican Party that believes the United States should husband its resources and lighten its load."
An AP poll released this week showed that 48 per cent of Americans characterized Mr. Obama's leadership as commander-as-chief as "cautious and consultative."
Caution and consultation can be viewed positively as long as they are vindicated by results. If they aren't, watch out. Already, more than a third of Americans describe Mr. Obama's style as "indecisive and dithering."
The President's pronouncements at the outset of the military mission seemed "more half-hearted than a strong commitment of purpose and will," Prof. Martel said. "If the outcome in Libya is not a good one, then the political penalties domestically will be significant."
With Libya and the Arab Spring, more than the fate of the Middle East is on the line. Suddenly, Mr. Obama's re-election might be, too.
Konrad Yakabuski