In order to appease the muslim "street", obama conjured up an approach called "muslim outreach" as the central plank of his FP coupled with his new miraculous "multilateralism"....specifically, he lined up foreign nations to isolate israel and thought that if the arabs thought he might sacrifice israel then he could appease the muslim world...appeasing your enemies by sacrificing your allies is NEVER a wise strategy.

obama was the one sticking it to israel first. He is on board with samantha power, rashid khalidi, zbigniew, freeman, malley, koh, reverand wright, and many many others... all of whom have well known anti israel viewpoints. no, its not because they are friends of israel and friends can talk this way, its because they really have issue with israel that have nothing to do with friends and everything to do with personal bias.

If netanyahu stood up to obama while obama was abusing him, so be it. He is the democratic leader of a free and sovereign state, whose friendship goes back decades....obama picked a fight with bibi for several reasons, not least of which is obama 's own narrative he was schooled on...he also picked the fight in order to APPEASE the muslims so he could be seen to be "fair"....thus tamping down muslim rage...bad advice he received.

obama has tried to interfere in israeli domestic politics from day 1....he has abused bibi in public and shown another head of state extreme discourtesy. His speeches in cairo, and ankara were subtle and not necessarily friendly...his handling of the freeze where he scolded israel and said nothing to the pals was frankly, a disservice to peace talks; he then made another huge blunder by declaring 67 lines IN ADVANCE of peace talks even beginning. Not that SOME aspects of that border wont come into play, but to declare it in advance, was stupid. Then you have his subtle mention of denuclearization for the region which is really a fantasy and smokescreen so he can hopefully get iran onside...

His WHOLE muslim outreach is a gigantic failure, and MUCH of it has to do with bad advice he's received that basically he sought out due to his own personal narrative about the region. He acts like he's still just a guy, but when your president, you HAVE to put your own narrative aside. He can't or won't.

Mr. Obama's whole foreign policy stinks; including the left's new fetish of leading from behind and the platform of muslim outreach, which has been tied to the so called "realists" notion of "treating Israel fairly". I also think the whole focus group contrived "RESET BUTTON" with Russia has been a GIANT failure, what with the removed missiles from Poland and Czech republic while receiving NOTHING in return...and NOW he wants to supply Turkey with an x-band radar (ostensibly through NATO as his cutout so he gets deniability so to speak) knowing that the x-band in turkeys hands drives a big whole through his whole medium range missile shield vis a vis Israel's protection. I think his foreign policy is weak, I think it is dangerous. If everyone wants to lead from behind on the toughest issues like Iran and Syria, then who will lead from the front? It is asinine and the republicans ought not be afraid to confront him on it. Using drones from cozy Las Vegas is fine, and it arguably helps, however, its ‘easy’ to do. Sending in seal team 6 was not easy per se, but it was THE call to make for any president. but these don't make a foreign policy...the whole surge in Afghanistan was made with wrought hands until his team devised a political win in it by suggesting they have a pro hawk FP BECAUSE of the surge , and yet at the same time they announced its departure!...which of course was for the left wing ....but it made NO SENSE FROM A NATIONAL SECURITY point of view...and THAT needs to be attacked...He played politics for domestic electoral needs and put that ahead of sound geopolitical strategy. I call that selfish and I call that a lack of leadership. What happened to the first “post partisan” president? I mean, could the media have been more deceived?

I think Iran will be his 3AM call and it will be his legacy. He PLEDGED in 08 to never allow Iran nuclear weapons...and ever since then, he has subtly been moving towards cold war containment theories, which wont work here, and to nuclear umbrellas which similarly wont work. He needs to be challenged on his words! His whole idea to float a world without nukes is if you ask me, a "direction" he wants to lay out so he can eventually try to denuke iran by ostensibly de-nuking Israel. I am sure this is his aim. Again, it’s naive. As for the "RESET" button with Russia; Just last week Russia announced it will recieve a delegation from hezbollah. Is that part of the new RESET? And what of China? Obama's whole new kinder MULTILATERAL approach was supposed to win over China for new FP initiatives and what does China do? They were offered Saudi oil to replace their Iranian oil (14% of China's oil needs) at lesser prices too and what did they say to Obama? No thank you. Obama should be challenged on all of these issues. I could go on about the handling of the peace process sham, or the Muslim outreach efforts re; Gitmo, “man made disasters”, morandizing on the battlefield, the fort hood Muslim terrorist they wont call a Muslim terrorist, asking NASA to make Muslim outreach its number 1 priority…etc..etc…

Obama’s sleight of hand FP needs to have a bright line shone on it…

Lastly, vis vis israel, his "unshakeable ally"; has he been to his Israel even ONCE since he's president? He's been to ankara, He's been to riyahd, He's been to cairo...but not his BEST FRIEND in the region????.

yes my friends, something in denmark stinks...if it walks and talks like a duck...well, you know the rest...

Individual writers, including the author of this article, often confuse the War on Terror (or anti Al Queda military and intelligence activities and actions--if one wishes) with Foreign Policy. They are not the same.

To quote from Websters," foreign policy" is the policy of a sovereign state in its interaction with other sovereign states.

The key term in the above definition is "sovereign state." Terrorist organizations such as Al Queda are not sovereign states.

Policy is a somewhat more difficult term to define. Again Websters defines "policy" as a definite course or method of action selected from alternatives and in light of given conditions to guide and determine resent and future actions ...

It is the course of the Obama Administrations "policy" with regard to the goals this nation is attempting to achieve in its relations with "certain" sovereign states and the effectiveness of the methods it is employing that potential Republican candidates for President and their supporters are arguing is effectual, et al.

This statement is not intended to support either the Obama Administration or the Republican candidates for President, but merely intended to point out the intellectual incorrectness of repeatedly claiming asserting that successful anti-terrorist activities and actions by US Intelligence Agencies and the Military's Special Operations organizations somehow are synonymous with Foreign Policy--other than the US policy of clearly being willing to ignore the sanctity of a (or some) sovereign state's borders when necessary to attack suspected terrorists.

And, while off the point of this discussion, personally I believe this is an appropriate policy for this nation and for others such as the Israeli's. Remember, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. However, once again this side comment takes the above discussion off track.

Individual writers, including the author of this article, often confuse the War on Terror (or anti Al Queda military and intelligence activities and actions--if one wishes) with Foreign Policy. They are not the same.

To quote from Websters," foreign policy" is the policy of a sovereign state in its interaction with other sovereign states.

The key term in the above definition is "sovereign state." Terrorist organizations such as Al Queda are not sovereign states.

Policy is a somewhat more difficult term to define. Again Websters defines "policy" as a definite course or method of action selected from alternatives and in light of given conditions to guide and determine resent and future actions ...

It is the course of the Obama Administrations "policy" with regard to the goals this nation is attempting to achieve in its relations with "certain" sovereign states and the effectiveness of the methods it is employing that potential Republican candidates for President and their supporters are arguing is effectual, et al.

This statement is not intended to support either the Obama Administration or the Republican candidates for President, but merely intended to point out the intellectual incorrectness of repeatedly claiming asserting that successful anti-terrorist activities and actions by US Intelligence Agencies and the Military's Special Operations organizations somehow are synonymous with Foreign Policy--other than the US policy of clearly being willing to ignore the sanctity of a (or some) sovereign state's borders when necessary to attack suspected terrorists.

And, while off the point of this discussion, personally I believe this is an appropriate policy for this nation and for others such as the Israeli's. Remember, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. However, once again this side comment takes the above discussion off track.

The basic problem with apologists for Obama is that they routinely fail to differentiate between events, like the killing of bin Laden, tactics, like the use of drones, strategy, like the surge in Afghanistan, and policies, like making appealing to the Muslim world the organizing principle of US policy. People who recognize that policies must come first realize that Obama's administration has been a largely unmitigated disaster, both in foreign policy and domestically.

While it is inevitable that Obama will sometimes do the right thing, like killing bin Laden, if he gets the higher levels of governing wrong, these events should be given little weight. The few successful tactics and strategies adopted are all hold-overs from the Bush Administration, invariably tactics and strategies he denounced during the 2008 campaign.

If foreign policy factors in this year's election, the central issue has got to be Obama's decision to make appealing to the Muslim world the organizing principle of his foreign policy. His Islamist-first orientation raises serious questions about his commitment to the values embedded in the Constitution and the character of America, which he has publicly committed to change. That his Attorney General has enabled the Muslim Brotherhood to determine what the FBI teaches its personnel about Islamist terror should be particularly troubling because the Brotherhood is on record as seeking to destroy America from within. The continuation of Holder as AG is thus a foreign policy issue.

Obama has earned the contempt of most foreign leaders by appearing weak and uninformed about how international policy is conducted. This contemp has fed directly into the growing problem of Iranian nuclear weapons development. The Iranians don't take him seriously, and they know, even if he doesn't, that he is working on their behalf by restraining the Israelis. The Israelis know this too, but have yet to decide whether this is due to incompetence or hostility to them. Obama's pesonal animus toward Netanyahu may turn out to be the determining factor in whether Israel decides it has to act on its own.

I am not a Republican, but if I were advising that party's eventual candidate, I would encourage him to attack Obama's foreign policy orientation. Despite what Rosner and Greenberg believe, if handled properly, foreign policy is a losing proposition for Obama.

Both President Bush-II and President Obama have been leading America during a period of relative decline. The American public knows this.

For the first time in a Century another economy will be more important than the American economy.

The decline in oil use is part due to the deindustrialization of America. Meanwhile, the US is still vulnerable to oil shocks, specially gasoline consumers.

The deindustrialization of America will inevitably lead to it loosing the lead in technology, as both companies and societies usually develop new technologies where they are either manufactured or in more intensive use:

a) American workers are no longer exposed to state of the art manufacturing processes, so they won’t be the ones informally contributing to innovation through hands on experience;

b) American consumers (individual as well as institutional -corporate and government-) are falling behind in the deployment of new technologies:

i. the biggest buildings in the world are being built elsewhere;

ii. the most efficient construction methods are being applied in new constructions elsewhere;

iii. the most innovative energy, communications and transportation solutions are being implemented on a massive scale elsewhere.

In the 21st Century America is to Asia what Europe was to the US in the 20th Century. When Asian visit the US in this century they will marvel at our quaint cities and inefficient suburbs just like Americans do when they visit stone cities and castles in Europe.

Bush-II´s mistakes are well known. But Obama has in many ways continued them.

Trade protectionism is increasing worldwide. For every free trade agreement there are dozens of non-tariff barriers. China and other countries steal American technologies. Countries shelter their companies and subsidize industries that directly compete against America. Countries manipulate their currencies, illegally use American goods and dump their products in the US.

Congress does nothing and the Administration’s WTO record is actually quite mixed, given the level of disloyal competition.

1) The War in Afghanistan has led to almost no long term results. The US will have to patrol the failed Afghan state for decades, just like happens in Yemen and Somalia. The Taliban are alive and well.

2) The War in Iraq has yet to produce a state with working political institutions.

3) Relations with Russia are reset in a Cold War mentality.

4) Expansion of Nato ground to a halt. Europe has no commitment to investing in the organization.

5) The former Soviet Union is continuously backtracking on democracy.

6) The US has no coherent plan for the Arab Spring. And democracy in the Gulf countries has made no significant progress (with American backing). There is a risk that the Saudis will step in and spread their Wahhabism, which is what is really at the center of anti-American Islamic terrorism.

7) Pakistan’s democracy is in continuous peril.

8) US relations with India are mediocre. India lags China economically, so it won’t be able to be the counterweight the West needs in Asia.

9) US sanctions against Iran have strengthened its reliance on India and China, while yet actually stopping its nuclear programme. (Iran’s democratization was also brutally suppressed.)

10) Central Asia is looking towards China economically and politically.

11) Chinese investments in Latin America and Africa are gaining more importance than those of the US.

12) The US only reliable ally, Europe, is barely able to deal with its own problems.

13) Turkey is looking away from Europe and more toward its Muslim neighbors.

14) Japan is in permanent stagnation.

15) Asean has yet to turn China into a non-bully neighbor.

Of all these countries and regions, the only one the Obama administration has mostly effectively addressed is the Arab Spring, ironically the one it couldn’t plan for.

There are other bright spots, of course (Burma/Myanmar, Sudan), withdrawal from Iraq, no democratic backtracking in East Asia, no significant expansion of “Chavism” in Latin America, no deterioration in Israel-Palestine relations, no significant misbehavior from North Korea, no overt military bullying by China, no more Russian invasions, etc.

And yes, America hasn’t suffered a large scale domestic foreign-planned terrorist attack.

But these don’t amount to a strategy to keep America the leader of the free world.

The overall direction points to America becoming just another power, indispensable, but unwilling (because of political problems at home) or unable (because of rising resource constraints) to use its influence.

Meanwhile other powers are rising to fill the voids. And there is no new stable pro-America coalition in the parts of the world that are ongoing the most significant changes.

A balanced set of arguments doesn’t save Obama on national security. And anyway, Republicans excel at presenting unbalanced arguments and convincing Americans they are the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Manifest Destiny is wired into Americans psyche and Democrats just don’t get it. (The argument about there being incoherence amongst the Republicans on national security or military spending doesn’t sustain scrutiny, except maybe now as regards Afghanistan.)

Confusing wanting results with exercising caution is a mistake. Americans will always go for bold leadership, specially in foreign affairs and specially if they see the adversaries as inferior. Iran is both a risk and an opportunity.

Obama has deliverd on combating terrorists by eliminated serveral key al Qaeda leaders including Osama Bin Laden during his term. The Arab spring when well and Libya is in change. After reading Karl Rove's and Ed Gillespie's articles on my iphone 5, they state good cases, but they are of their opinons and not based on truely what Americans feel.