Originally Answered: Why is it the thing I disliked most about Bush ( monolithic executive power ) is openly Obama's modus operandi?
There are a few problems with your thesis.
1) You think Bush lacked decisive MILITARY commitment to ending terrorism? What did you want? Nuking the whole Middle East? Bush's problem was lack of a proper INTELLIGENCE response to the problem. So that being the case, Obama has made it clear that he does not intend to perpetuate Bush's response. Of course, intentions and actualization of the intentions are two different things, but Obama has been president for a month. I don't think we can form conclusions.
2) If Barack Obama did not provide strong, decisive, specifically-directed leadership out of the White House as we navigate our way out of the fiasco Bush and his party created, he'd be criticized, for being weak, do-nothing, and ineffectual.
I have to say, I never thought Bush would be a good president, but I gave him quite a bit more of a chance to show me who he was and what he could do than so many Republicans and professed Independents and uncommitted voters are giving Obama. I think the volume of posts I'm seeing bashing Obama as president when he's been in office for a month are bizarre. Honestly, why would any American want their president to fail? He fails, we suffer. Why would anyone want that?
Well, I can't address you by your user name because I don't feel like I'm talking to a person when I say it, but...
I will grant you that even as a military response, Bush's approach was inept, but arguably, not because it was indecisive as because it was negatively decisive. I don't think we have seen what Obama will do in that area yet, but I agreed with his stance on Afghanistan and Iraq during the campaign and I've seen no evidence that he's changed that position.
Last time I checked, leadership was for any president and/or CEO of any organization or business. Understand that you have Democrats in Congress wanting to move the country in a radical new direction (of which I approve for the most part) and Republicans in Congress who are so terrified that they've mishandled their party into irrelevancy that they've become obstructionists purely for the sake of obstructing. I couldn't believe it. One week after Obama was elected, CNN was reporting one Republican figurehead after the next criticizing every single thing Obama did, from Cheney saying that Obama was wrong to move to close Gitmo (could he possibly not know that nobody cares what he has to say and he has zero credibility?); to some bafoon, I don't even recall who, criticizing Obama wearing rolled up sleeves and no jacket in the Oval Office.
If a president does not provide leadership while some try to forge a new direction and others obstruct purely for the sake of ambition and political manipulation, we would get nothing done.
Civic involvement is great and as a former Marine, nobody could criticize the level to which you've been involved, but I wonder if you're not a little quick to just write off every leader/government of our country as being paintable with the same brush. I have good friends who voted for Obama who are already doing the same thing.