But Chinese officials conceded nothing: They insist on discussions about sanctions, postponing action on them.

Obama’s leadership failed. Russia, China and Iran aren’t willing to compromise to support Obama’s agenda. Unfortunately, some of our military leaders are. He is leading them in transforming our military into a politically correct force.

It’s possible that the liberals believe that our military is so strong that they can re-engineer its culture without affecting its abilities. The only other conclusion is that they don’t care what results from their actions. Military leaders who support Obama’s politically correct military risk a catastrophic reduction of our armed forces’ ability to fight.

As the Fort Hood massacre proved, political correctness can kill. There is no excuse for Army Maj. Nidal Hasan’s superiors ignoring the glaring warning signs he gave before killing 13 people, but they did for fear of being labeled anti-Muslim.

Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey’s statement a week after the tragedy reinforced Hasan’s superiors’ misbehavior: “Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.”

Why would anyone want to serve in an army whose leader believes it’s more important to support diversity than to protect their lives from murderous threats within the force?

Navy wives put up with a lot. Their husbands are often at sea for months, leaving them to run their families. Until recently, the wives’ strong objection to women serving on submarines was respected. But the ban is being lifted.

When the Silent Service devolves into a bunch of submersible Love Boats — and it will, inevitably — the wives and families will suffer. And many of their men will not be willing to sacrifice their families to what has been — until Obama — careers in an elite force.

Political correctness for the military includes another key goal for Obama: Repealing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law that prohibits homosexuals from serving openly in the military.

Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is enthusiastic about the DADT repeal, telling the Senate Armed Services Committee that “no matter how I look at this issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. For me personally, it comes down to integrity — theirs as individuals and ours as an institution.”

Fortunately, not all of Obama’s military confuse integrity with political correctness.

Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway is a lonely voice in Obama’s Pentagon. He opposes the repeal of DADT. In that same February hearing, Conway said, “I think the current policy works.” He added, “My best military advice to this committee, to the secretary, to the president, would be to keep the law such as it is.”

Conroy later said that if “DADT” is repealed, he wouldn’t force straight Marines to share quarters with gays. That may be possible on land outside of war zones, but it’s impossible at sea.

One former carrier skipper told me that even on a 98,000-ton Nimitz class carrier — the largest warships afloat — it’s tough to make room for women. Privacy means separate bunking areas, separate toilets and showers for both enlisted and officers.

“If it’s almost impossible to accommodate two genders,” he asked, “how can I make room for four?” If DADT is repealed, more families will suffer, more men and women will refuse to serve. And our military will be less capable, less ready to fight, than our nation needs it to be.

About 2300 years ago, the Chinese philosopher-general Sun Tzu wrote that leadership must be characterized by “moral influence.” He defined it as, “that which causes the people to be in harmony with their leaders, so that they will accompany them in life and unto death without fear of mortal peril.”

Obama’s leadership — his “moral influence” — is that of the most domestically polarizing and internationally weak president since Jimmy Carter. His defense and foreign policy priorities are perverse, not devised to defend America and its allies abroad.

Embracing our enemies, shunning our allies, building down our armed forces and warring with our intelligence community are not the priorities of a president whose principal goal is winning the war the against terrorist nations. But they are Obama’s.