The thing that stands out to me is that the Chilean president was there in person for every single rescue. I have no idea what kind of man he is, but that to me, sets a great example of how national leaders should respond in a disaster.
"Particular credit belongs to Chilean President Sebastián Piñera. It was Mr. Piñera who insisted on an all-out rescue effort, ultimately involving three separate extraction methods, when a more cautious (or fatalistic) politician might have feared raising expectations that could easily have been dashed.
Commentators have described his decision as a calculated political gamble, but to us it seems more like genuine statesmanship. Chile has historically depended on mining for much of its wealth. To keep faith with the men who go deep down into the earth to extract that wealth, as Mr. Piñera has, can no more be subject to a cost-benefit analysis than an army's decision to rescue its wounded or fallen soldiers from the battlefield. Deeper things are at stake."
It's a mixed bag. At this time in this kind of disaster I agree it made sense for him to be right there. But in many other types of disasters, the president's presence does little but further complicate the situation.
Comments
The thing that stands out to me is that the Chilean president was there in person for every single rescue. I have no idea what kind of man he is, but that to me, sets a great example of how national leaders should respond in a disaster.
Here's a relevant comment from a house editorial of The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870367360457555...):
"Particular credit belongs to Chilean President Sebastián Piñera. It was Mr. Piñera who insisted on an all-out rescue effort, ultimately involving three separate extraction methods, when a more cautious (or fatalistic) politician might have feared raising expectations that could easily have been dashed.
Commentators have described his decision as a calculated political gamble, but to us it seems more like genuine statesmanship. Chile has historically depended on mining for much of its wealth. To keep faith with the men who go deep down into the earth to extract that wealth, as Mr. Piñera has, can no more be subject to a cost-benefit analysis than an army's decision to rescue its wounded or fallen soldiers from the battlefield. Deeper things are at stake."
It's a mixed bag. At this time in this kind of disaster I agree it made sense for him to be right there. But in many other types of disasters, the president's presence does little but further complicate the situation.
I thought the same, and he looked genuinely happy, of course... but what is the limit where we would say he was taking advantage of the situation?