What does the title mean?

Well Redford couldn't even get that quote right! Blech!

It seems you have it right.

I did a quick search:

"An Irish newspaper claimed that "The name of the film is derived from a remark made by a German officer during World War I, comparing British soldiers' bravery with the calculated criminality of their commanders".[8] While several reviewers in the UK have criticized the film for misquoting the commonly used phrase of "lions led by donkeys",[9][10][11] in an article written for The Times on the origin of the title, Brian Dimuccio and Dino Vindeni claimed that:

One such composition included the observation, 'Nowhere have I seen such Lions led by such Lambs.' While the exact provenance of this quotation has been lost to history, most experts agree it was written during the Battle of the Somme, one of the bloodiest clashes in modern warfare. While some military archivists credit the author as an anonymous infantryman, others argue that the source was none other than General Max von Gallwitz, Supreme Commander (sic) of the German forces. In either case, it is generally accepted to be a derivation of Alexander the Great’s proclamation, 'I am never afraid of an army of Lions led into battle by a Lamb. I fear more the army of Lambs who have a Lion to lead them.'[12]

Though Lions for Lambs was the first United Artists venture since Cruise and Paula Wagner attained control, executives billed the film as a "Robert Redford vehicle."[13] Filming began on January 29, 2007,[14] and Redford considered the movie "the tightest schedule I’ve ever worked with," with barely a year between announcement and release.[5]"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lions_for_Lambs

"lions led by donkeys" - in a vernacular that might resonate more with some of us today, we might say: "Lions led by jackasses".

Still, it seems a little awkward to equate "Lions for Lambs" to Lions led by jackasses.
But, I suppose? that is what the anti-war production was aiming for?
Yes, I see that there is an "attempt" at even-handedness in this movie, but the over-all makeup of the production cast, crew, etc - gives us a pretty good clue about the movie's real agenda.

A Hollywood sentiment of "We support the troops" (but not their leaders / not the mission).



And, since I can't seem to help myself, I believe we are at a very dangerous crossroads; the verge of nuclear war.

Regardless of where anyone may be politically - it seems clear to me (based on statements long coming from Iran, that they are determined to have nuclear bombs (and inter-continental ballistic missiles to deliver them - inter-continentally.).

On the lead up to WWII - Hitler's raving fanatical threats of war should not have been ignored. But, many people chose to stick their heads in the sand; to close their eyes to reality. And then there was war; horrible war - made all the worse because of appeasement.

The current American president's approach toward Iran seems more about appeasement (comparable to Neville Chamberlain's "Appeasement Foreign Policy" (google it).
While the current administration attempts to make nice with Iran, it downsizes the USA military and all but guarantees a nuclear arms race in the Middle East (in the absence of strong leadership from the USA) and the use of those weapons in a very short few years; a perfect nuclear storm is in the making.
Obama is gambling that he will be out of office before the first nuclear explosion - thus he will claim indemnity; didn't happen on his watch.

Ironically, what the wiki quote suggests as the true origin of this quote seems most appropriate:

"it is generally accepted to be a derivation of Alexander the Great’s proclamation, 'I am never afraid of an army of Lions led into battle by a Lamb. I fear more the army of Lambs who have a Lion to lead them.'

Tragically for the human race - the "exceptional" USA; leader of the free world - is being led by a lamb.