It depends what the meaning of leadership is

In what it looks like his last bit of office work before he left for Vienna, George Bush sent some minor amendments to the Geneva Conventions to the Senate for ratification. Now while minor, they do reveal one side benefit from the US eagerness to have the Iraqi government nominally in charge of combatting the insurgency. One amendment brings certain restrictions on weapons that are unusually harmful to civilians into domestic conflicts, but Bush's letter is keen to emphasize

It does not change the legal status of rebel or insurgent groups into that of protected or privileged belligerents

In other words, they won't have to go to the bother of classifying captured Iraqi insurgents under the non-existent "enemy combatant" Gitmo designation, because the Iraqi government can continue to do it for them. Second, about those pesky weapons that have to be cleaned up afterwards:

CCW Protocol V provides for the marking, clearance, removal, and destruction of such remnants by the party in control of the territory in which the munitions are located.

And who happens to be in control of the territory where all Saddam's conventional weapons were located (but not secured after the invasion) and where the US military now pursues a mini "Powell doctrine" in pursuit of Iraqi insurgents? The Iraqi government!

Finally, in urging the Senate to ratify the amendments (the other of which allows Israel to join the Red Cross), Bush concludes:

These treaties are in the interest of the United States, and their ratification would advance the longstanding and historic leadership of the United States in the law of armed conflict.

Trebles all round!

UPDATE 11 JANUARY 2007: It looks like part of the above took till now to work its way back to Bush insofar as it was a law requiring his signature; the press release announcing the signature again gratuitously notes --

It reflects the commitment of the United States to international law, including the Geneva Conventions.