Allies confused? So are we.

Foreign Policy: "European governments “completely puzzled” about U.S. position on Libya"

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's meetings in Paris with the G8 foreign ministers on Monday left her European interlocutors with more questions than answers about the Obama administration's stance on intervention in Libya. ...

Clinton's unwillingness to commit the United States to a specific position led many in the room to wonder exactly where the administration stood on the situation in Libya.

"Frankly we are just completely puzzled," the diplomat said. "We are wondering if this is a priority for the United States."

Clinton took no position on anything, "repeating the administration's position that all options are on the table but not specifically endorsing any particular step."

I say that if the Euros are confused, they can take a number and wait in line. Besides, as the WSJ's Kimberley Strassel explains, the lack of clarity by Obama on Libya is only what we have come to expect.

If you'd like to know where the leader of the free world stands on those NCAA rankings, just turn on ESPN. ("I think Kansas has more firepower," he explained as he filled out his bracket.) Wondering what the commander in chief thinks about gun laws? Don't worry—he's in favor of those already on the books, according to a recent op-ed.

If, however, you are curious about where the most powerful man in the universe stands on Libya, radiation, a possible government shutdown, the future of Social Security, or rising oil prices, don't look to the White House. Those issues are tough. Those issues risk mistakes.

I wrote in October 2009 that we are saddled with a Mae West presidency coupled with the return of the Peter Principle.

"The Peter Principle is the principle that "In a Hierarchy Every Employee Tends to Rise to His Level of Incompetence." It was formulated by Dr. Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull in their 1969 book The Peter Principle, a humorous treatise which also introduced the "salutary science of Hierarchiology", "inadvertently founded" by Peter. ...

The Peter Principle is a special case of a ubiquitous observation: anything that works will be used in progressively more challenging applications until it fails.

I don't see how anyone examining President Obama's overall record can argue against the proposition that he occupies an office far above his level of incompetency.

At one's level of incompetence, the manager or leader occupies his time with tasks below the level necessary for the office and hopes that staffs can pull success's rabbit out of the hat. (This helps explains why Obama has so many czars.) Couple that with Obama's inherent inability to measure success by any standard other than getting personal attention from as broad a swath as possible, and you see that the Oval office is occupied by a weak, ineffectual leader unable to perform at the level required. ...

After John F. Kennedy was elected, President Dwight D. Eisenhower spent many hours with him. One of the key lessons was this: "All the decisions you will make," said Eisenhower, "will be hard decisions." Dwight went on to explain that the easy things will be tended to by cabinet secretaries and others of the administration with executive authority. But the tough ones will always be kicked to higher levels to be decided. At every level, the decisions become more and more difficult until, at last, the presidential inbox is filled with nothing but the most difficult items.

There is nothing at all in Obama's pre-presidential resume that shows he ever made highly difficult decisions that depended, at the end, on his own personal reservoir of wisdom and experience. So he does not tackle the inbox because its contents are above his competence. (One is reminded of Obama telling Rick Warren that when an unborn child gets human rights is "above my pay grade.") He tends instead to lesser matters that match his lower level of competence, such as filling out basketball brackets and flying down to Rio on a five-day trip of little importance, but which conveniently corresponds to his daughters' spring break. So tourism time will be a heavy feature of the agenda. But will anything presidential be accomplished?

President Obama's visit to Brazil this weekend, and his speech on Brazil-U.S. economic relations, will be closely watched for hints on the administration's trade agenda. The President has called for increasing exports, yet held back from pushing for action on pending Free Trade Agreements with Colombia and Panama. For its part, Congress has linked action on the Korean FTA to the Colombia and Panama pacts. While this impasse continues, we are losing great opportunities to grow exports -- and create jobs.

The President needs to provide resolute leadership on trade, and Brazil is a great place to start.

But that's not why he's gone down there.

So Euro leaders are confused about the president's position on Libya? Why would they be any different than the rest of us, on this or any other issue?

Related: "Rex Murphy: When crisis strikes the world, Obama falls silent"

There’s a great vacancy at the top of the world: A retreat by the American government from its global leadership role. ...

It is ironic that this high celebrity of a president seems more comfortable with acting the celebrity role than being the president. There’s a vacancy at the top of the world. And his name is Obama.

As I said, we are saddled with a Mae West presidency - "It's better to be looked over than overlooked."