The President could learn a lot from Spider-Man

"With great power comes great responsibility."
The one word I didn't hear during President Obama's address last night announcing the end of combat operations in Iraq was "Freedom."  It's a word his predecessor used often both as a conceptual elemental human aspiration and as a symbolic understanding of America's place in the world.
Whether we should have gone to war in Iraq is a legitimate discussion.  Whether the United States ought to involve itself in world issues in general is also a legitimate discussion.  Many people believe we have no business "meddling" in others' affairs.  They might prefer a sort of isolationism as foreign policy.  Others believe that as the only remaining true superpower in the world America has a duty and obligation to protect its interests and the interests of other nations and peoples.  Many believe we have an obligation to spread the concepts of freedom and liberty throughout the world.  Again, these are all discussions open for reasoned, civil debate.
The reality, however, is that America remains the only true power in the world.  As such, in the sage words of Uncle Ben, "With great power comes great responsibility."  Much like the reluctant comic book superhero, America's great power is intrinsically coupled with great responsibility.
President Obama's speech seemed unengaged and disinterested.  He spoke of Iraq in a manner that, frankly, cast it as little more than a distraction.  Instead he simply said it is time to "turn the page" on a chapter of our history, not recognizing the enormity of a task nearly completed yet which remains tenuous.
From the National Review Online:

For now, we have transformed Iraq from a hostile, terrorist-supporting dictatorship destabilizing the region into a ramshackle democracy that is an ally in the war on terror. To get Iraq to this point, in January 2007 President Bush had to order tens of thousands of additional troops into a failing war, in the teeth of gale-force opposition from the political establishment, public opinion, and the balance of the military brass. To capitalize on the opportunity we have bought in Iraq with blood and treasure, President Obama has to do something much easier: resist a strategically witless urge to turn his back on Iraq as being merely the site of "Bush’s war."
The president’s Oval Office address wasn’t confidence-inducing.
...In its failure to credit explicitly Bush’s surge for turning around the war, the speech was graceless; in its cursory treatment of Iraq, it lacked strategic vision; and in its attempt to hijack the troops for Obama’s domestic priorities (“we must tackle . . . challenges at home with as much energy and grit, and sense of common purpose, as our men and women in uniform”), it was shameless.

At first glance it would seem that President Obama doesn't understand the great responsibilities placed into his hands as President of the United States, leader of the free world and shepherd of Freedom on earth.  He campaigned on a single-minded promise to end the war in Iraq.  He reminded us that he kept his promise. 
But the story is not over.  The stakes are still high and Iraq is still important, not only for its citizens but for the region as a whole.
What happens if Iraq devolves?  The current forces which remain are called support troops or transitional forces or some such relabelling that may or may not appease the anti-war left or isolationist libertarians.  Do we send troops back to fight some more?
Which post-conflict model does the President intend to emulate?  The Vietnam pullout which led to the slaughter of millions?  Or the peace-keeping presence of American military in South Korea?  We still have military bases in Germany and Japan as well.
Finally, just how will we deal with a belligerent nuclear Iran, Iraq's neighbor?
It is clear that President Obama's most animating interest is his leftist social domestic agenda.  He implied now that we have washed our hands of the Iraq problem, we owe it to those who fought and died to support his economic agenda.  How patriotic.
The President does not seem fond of America's position of power in the world and the sense of America's responsibility to protect the idea of individual freedom.  As a leftist he likely sees it as unfair that other countries are not as strong, or as prosperous, or as safe.  The inequality of superiority likely bothers him greatly.  Perhaps that's why he seems to always feel he needs to make apologies overseas.
So perhaps it is more likely that he does recognize America's position in the world, and he doesn't like it and would prefer to ignore or even minimize it.
Remember what happened when Peter Parker neglected his opportunity and responsibility to stop the bad guy?  He lost his uncle.  If America, the Shining City on a Hill, does not protect people and stop bad guys, who will?  And what will the world lose?