Leading from behind, whether on domestic issues or troubles in the Middle East, Obama fails to accomplish an adequate grasp the challenges or effective solutions. Instead, he defers tough choices to Congress, which is terribly divided.
On healthcare, European and Japanese rivals spend much less and get more favorable results, making U.S. businesses uncompetitive and destroying jobs.
Instead of asking how the U.S. system can do better with less -- something very distasteful to healthcare providers -- Obama booted the problem to Congress with disastrous results.
Most recently, IBM announced it will force its retirees into Medicare exchanges. Even with subsidies for supplemental insurance, this will result in fewer benefits and higher costs, and a broken promise for Obama. Remember, Americans were supposed to be able to keep the employer insurance they liked.
On Syria, his inability to make tough choices and shoulder responsibility is proving even more tragic.
Last spring, Obama was telling the world Assad has to go and be held accountable for his violence against civilians but Obama refused to adequately assist the rebel forces.
Stalling gave fundamentalist and terrorist elements from elsewhere in the Middle East time to infiltrate the Syrian insurgency and recruit young men for terrorist activities elsewhere.
Now, deposing Assad would likely result in a regime even more objectionable and threatening to U.S. interests and America even more vulnerable to terrorism.
Faced with Assad's horrific use of chemical weapons, Obama concluded a military strike was necessary but refused to embrace his presidential responsibility to act quickly -- on his own authority.
Instead, he asked Congress for approval, delayed the debate until the conclusion of the summer recess and gave the political forces that always deny the necessity of military force in both Europe and the United States time to organize, and for Syrian arms supplier and advocate Russia to work its diplomatic mischief.
The hard reality is that unless the United States or U.S. forces are under direct attack, voters won't support action.
Obama has never accepted that he must take political heat for tough decisions as the price for occupying the Oval Office.
Now U.S. Secretary of State Kerry has misstepped. By stating Syria could wiggle out by delivering to international authorities its chemical weapons, he has permitted Russia, which is most interested in diminishing U.S. status in Europe, to assert it can broker such a deal.
Syria may deliver some weapons but negotiations over a verification system to ensure the delivery is complete will go on for months and may never conclude. In both Europe and the United States, opposition to military action will grow and if the president persists in advocating a strike, the United States will be increasingly isolated and unable to act effectively without putting U.S. forces at unnecessary risk.
Syria's military assets will be well-hidden, its air defenses hardened and the now-positioned Soviet armada will be able to pinpoint U.S. naval movements for its military. Cruise missiles won't be enough and U.S. pilots and seamen will be at great risk.
Had the president acted in August when Assad's use of chemical weapons was determined, he would have had more allied help and U.S. forces would be less vulnerable.
Instead, Obama may be forced to back down, leaving Assad in power and to Obama's successor the very difficult task of rebuilding U.S. credibility abroad.
Once again, the president gets an "F" for his management of the Syrian crisis.
(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)