Talent is important. There is no doubt about it. But
character and attitude are defining. Yesterday, nearing the end of the longest set
in the 133-year history of Wimbledon, locked in a titanic struggle with an
opponent who was playing heroic tennis, Roger Federer said he told himself that
"at 13-13 in the fifth set, I'm exactly where I want to be, just a few
points from victory." Sure, you can look at things negatively, but my
positive side is important and I really believed right until the end."
If Federer has
an equal in the world of sports in terms of character and attitude, it is
his friend, another who is the best to have ever played his sport, Tiger Woods.
Yesterday, he too stood at a turning point in a tournament, having lost sole
possession of his lead thanks to a bad shot on the preceding hole. "You
can go either way," Woods is
quoted as saying in today's Washington
Post, "You can win the tournament or you can lose the
tournament." Of course, once again, Woods like Federer summoned what was
necessary to win. As Barry Svrluga wrote in the Post, "pressure, with Woods, is like an old, dear embraceable
friend." It is not a friend because it feels good. It is a friend because
his extraordinary gift for handling pressure, like Federer, is what separates
him from his opponents time and time again.
These events, juxtaposed with the death
of former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and President
Obama's trip to Russia and to the G8 meeting, drive home an important
message. David Halberstam's classic book about McNamara and his colleagues
during the Kennedy administration is, of course, called The
Best and the Brightest. It is a phrase that has worked its way into the
language, often invoked about the glittering prizes Obama has surrounded
himself with. What has been forgotten is Halberstam's message. The title was
ironic. Being the best and the brightest is not enough. More than anything
else, character matters. The ability to rise up and play at your best in the
face of the greatest pressure is why often those with seemingly limited tools
from Lincoln to Truman, outperform the academic superstars and those with the
fancy degrees, like Carter or George W. Bush. (Of course, it didn't help Bush that
he was neither the best nor the brightest nor possessed of the character of a
great leader.)
We already have some clues as to what may test the character
of Obama's national security team. His meetings today in Russia suggest one
relationship which is certain to do so. Despite the face-saving "framework
agreement" (a Washington euphemism for a decision to keep talking in spite
of differences so serious that they kept the sides from providing any real
progress for the leaders to hail in their meetings), it is clear that the
U.S.-Russia relationship is not going to be an easy one for Obama. Last week he
took a couple of swipes at Russia's Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and
yesterday he offered encouragement for reforms proposed by Putin's protégé, the
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.
Whether this was deft maneuvering was debated in today's papers but it
is clear that the U.S. administration is uncomfortable with Putin's often
confrontational, often anti-democratic, sometimes overtly anti-U.S.
stance.
As noted here last week, senior State Department officials
feel Russia has been far from helpful on the issue of Iran's nukes. It has been
provocative in its own near abroad. It has used its energy supplies as a cudgel
that heightens regional tensions. And it is not making matters easier by
demanding the U.S. back away from plans for an East European missile defense as
part of any arms deal. Obama & Co.
have been properly tight-lipped on this but I'm concerned that their impulse is
to give in on this issue -- at least in part because they are starting to
believe their own rhetoric that the missile defenses are designed primarily to
keep out Iranian ballistic missiles. Iran is of course, a concern. But so too
is Russia. In fact, let's be honest: it is a hostile, highly armed,
economically and socially challenged Russia that remains the main reason to
have such a defense. If not because of threats they post today then because
they may well pose serious threats in the future. (And if you don't believe
missile defense works well enough to fight for it...view it purely as a useful
bargaining chip.)
It would almost certainly be politically easier to cave on
the missile defenses in order to win some progress on an arms deal with Russia.
Just as it would be politically easier to proceed with a deal with Iran on
nukes even if we don't really believe they will honor it or let us effectively
monitor them. Just as it is politically easier to take a partial solution on
health care or half a loaf on climate change. The looming question is whether
this an administration that talks a good game but folds when the going gets
tough. (And of course, I'm hopeful it's not.)
The Russians we know will press and press and bully and
bully. The question is whether Obama will be able to respond shot for shot,
holding his ground, remaining focused on his true goal, which needs to be not
winning a round of negotiations but rather winning in the bigger contest of
ensuring a more stable world in the long term. Frankly, the fact that reports
out of Russia suggest some turbulence is encouraging to me, a sign of a U.S.
team that is holding its ground. (Although I can't help but comment that I
think it is a little weird that neither the Secretary of State nor the Deputy
Secretary of State is accompanying the president on this trip. Elbow
injuries notwithstanding.)
On arms control, we learned over the weekend new details
about Obama's formative thinking on the issue thanks to a New York Times article
exploring a paper he wrote on the subject while a student at Columbia. He has
clearly been grappling with this issue a long time and as described in his
Prague speech on his last major trip to Europe, he has described ambitious
goals. If he can use concessions to the
Russians on missile defense to advance those goals meaningfully, if he can use
them to get the Russians to be more effective in helping to contain Iran's
nuclear ambitions, if he can use them to move Russia toward leading us to a
meaningfully improved successor to Start I and that agreement in turn to build
good will to move toward further reductions in U.S. and Russian stockpiles and
ultimately toward a new NPT, excellent.
The difference between sports stars and presidents of
course, is that when the character of presidents fail, we all lose. And when it succeeds, we all benefit. Watch
the news this week from Moscow and Italy to see whether we can see whether
Obama is learning the lessons of Federer, Woods...and McNamara.
Clive Brunskill/Getty Images
COMMENTS (1)
Read More
