I can’t say that I’m surprised; but what’s particularly pitiful here is that they don’t even seem to grasp the situation beyond the rudimentary schoolyard-ape-shoving level.
Certainly when talking about the US presidency, and pretty typically for governments that aren’t some 12th century petty barony, you don’t have to choose between smiling and inflicting violence. You have people for the latter function, because specialization of labor is a thing now; but there’s no contradiction between being diplomatic at some diplomatic summit and having an MQ-9 ruin somebody’s day. (Indeed, if there’s a day when the president of the United States isn’t doing that; it’s probably because he’s not smiling)
I’d be curious to know how much of this is just down to the fact that they are commenting on a member of the enemy tribe, so it is axiomatic that what he is doing is wrong, and how much is down to a more or less profound failure to grapple with social and governmental institutions at scale that retreats into a childish assumption that the social signals of the strongman are a meaningful proxy for the behavior of the state as a whole.
(edit, not sure why I forgot about this: One wonders what they would have thought of noted liberal snowflake and effeminate weakling Teddy ‘the avuncular walrus of imperialism’ Roosevelt’s advice of “Speak softly and carry a big stick”. Probably just a RINO.)
