I don't think Walt is really "a realist in an ideological age" any more than I'd b 1 if I claimed to 1.
I'm not including examples so as not to offend anyone

The bad part of the right wing in Honduras, Columbia and Peru have gotten away with to much , giving much ammunition to Chavez. Reviving the 4th fleet also don´t seem to be helping .
On the plus side Obama administration havent started any coups or invaded any countries in the region yet
C-

I think what Walt, Drezner and Lynch failed to see was America's increasingly worsening relations with Israel. Although recently Obama and Netanyahu seemed to smile while shaking hands, the fissure is deeper than we estimate. Jewish lobby in Washington is very powerful and can easily manipulate elections, particularly the mid-term election.

Obama will most probably remain silent to Jewish settlements and call Israel and PLA to talk more, as Obama is going through November election peacefully.

Relations with Pacific Rim countries, even Vietnam, trending upwards:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704741904575409261840078780.html?mod=WSJEUROPE_hpp_LEFTTopStories

An interesting idea to grade the president on these topics. In order:

Dr. Walt's categories:

1. Iran: C+
Not perfect, but (apparently) under the radar for most people, Iran's position has significantly deteriorated in the last two years. The nuclear program still goes on, but definitely points for trending in the right direction.

2. Iraq: C+
I can't give an A because of a lack of focus, but let's face it, our troops are getting out. What did we expect, Utopia? We're leaving and the country doesn't seem likely to serve as a terrorist base in the future, good enough for me.

3. Israel/Palestine: F
Here I agree with the bad grades, our tolerance of Israeli behavior makes us look particularly biased in their favor and undermines us as a mediator. However, I don't know of any one else who would probably do any better as president.

4. Afghanistan: C-
We're treading water. Again, not nearly as great as I'd like, but parts of Gen. Petreus' strategy (such as training marines with the LAPD to understand community based efforts) seem promising. I'll raise the grade a little bit when it seems like we're ready to start leaving.

Dr. Drezner's categories:

1. Great Power Politics: A-
I agree with Dr. Drezner here, not too much to add.

2. Correcting Imbalances in the Global Economy: D-
I'll give him the grade to get him out of the class, but not much more. He hasn't done all that much to pressure China to revalue its currency (my main imbalance complaint). However, there is a theory that the pressure has in fact been what has kept China from doing it in the first place. While there are risks to this (they may not do it), it's worth a shot. It's not like anything else has worked so far.

3. Trade: C-
I give him some points for focusing attention on US exports. While he hasn't been able to pass free-trade agreements because of his own party, it's not as if the other party did all that well with those when they were in power for six years (Can you name the free-trade pacts passed in 2001-2006 anyone?). Grading on a curve, I might be willing to up this to a C+.

4. Nuclear Non-Proliferation: B-
Again, full agreement with Dr. Drezner. Nothing to add here.

I feel no need to add my own categories here, I don't see all that much that wasn't already covered in these four. If I had to give an overall grade, however, I'd put up a C+/B-. Definitely passing with ease, but far from perfect.

...though I'm a little skeptical that judgements about big subjects like relations with China (or for that matter India or Japan) can be reliably made this early in the Obama administration.

A large part of the success President Obama has had, of course, has to do with the fact that his predecessors was wholly preoccupied for long periods with the war in Iraq to the exclusion of everything else. Obama is not -- committed himself even during the campaign not to be, in fact -- and has picked up some gains from that alone. Some of his critics, Steve Walt in particular, remain focused on the region between the Indian border and the Mediterranean, and judge Obama primarily on how things are going there.

I have a number of criticisms of the way the Obama administration makes and implements foreign policy, which I won't repeat here. I will note one cause for optimism; Obama seems willing to change in response to setbacks -- not always, and not always quickly, but again, faster and more effectively than his predecessor. That's a hopeful sign.

The most important failure for Obama has been his inattentiveness to India -- one of the major successes of the Bush administration and a vital relationship for any real realists interested in balancing the power of a rising China.

Also, Obama has abandoned much of the strategic space won by Bush's initiatives in Africa to the Chinese.

And his lack of attention to S. America has been a similar failure.

Wasn't that supposed to be a big part of the Obama agenda?

"I think what Walt, Drezner and Lynch failed to see was America's increasingly worsening relations with Israel. Although recently Obama and Netanyahu seemed to smile while shaking hands, the fissure is deeper than we estimate. Jewish lobby in Washington is very powerful and can easily manipulate elections, particularly the mid-term election.

Obama will most probably remain silent to Jewish settlements and call Israel and PLA to talk more, as Obama is going through November election peacefully."

Of course - the "Jewish lobby", very "powerful" "easily manipulate elections."

Sure, any more antisemitic canards? Obama is not a passive victim to some sinister lobby. He spoke at AIPAC as a candidate and said Jerusalem was to stay united.

Obama has talked so much trash about the settlements you'd have to be a totally fool to say he has "remained silent." The only thing Obama has remained silent on is Palestinian rejectionism, corruption, US-support for Hezbollah-client state Lebanon, refusing to honor promises to Israel and jerking around its military while we bomb states thousands of miles away.

Our state department has always been extremely pro-Arab and anti-Israel. DOD was for awhile, not so much anymore. I know the left likes to blame some bogus lobby but the reality is the majority of Americans support Israel over Palestinians by a factor of 6. And those who don't support Israel most certainly certainly do not support the Palestinians.

Less than 15% of all US citizens are pro-Palestinian. So that leaves 85% to be pro-Israel/indifferent.

No conspiracy necessary.

Obama has embraced the muslim world since day one - selling weapons to egypt, fighting for saudi arabia in yemen (8,000 killed) which went TOTALLY UNNOTICED BY THE MEDIA I DONT KNOW HOW FP MISSED IT.

Israel is irrelevant. Obama knows jack shit about MIDEAST peace. His latest speaking engagement as some free-Gaza movement crap with PLO-sock puppet Khlalid shows who our president is loyal to. Of course the media won't cover it. LA times has a story but no one else does.

But yeah..let's blame Israel for our foreign policy failures. God knows the most powerful country on the planet has been victim to Israel's "aggression."

incompetence and venality, even though they might have shamelessly benefited from it.

Sorry, but surplus nations don't owe we spendthrifts anything, and our grand plan seems to basically to encourage them to become a bunch of consumerist spendthrifts, junking up their places with cheap crap nobody needs.

This constant American refrain reminds me of a petulant 19th-century Manchu official.

I really have been impressed with Obama's approach to Iran. He has not let us get outflamked in his approach to sanctions. They probably have begun to bite as he says. Maybe some evidence of this is a dead Israeli Colonel. Moving on to the next phase, the recent comments of a (?) retired Air Force general about how Iran might be attacked, air war against nuclear sites, few civilian casualties but killing the scientists at the site and 'setting back the program for a generation,' etc could probably though sotto voce be heard. The applause line of the happy firecracker rolled toward Ahmadinejad's vehicle was nice.

Mr. Denzer grades Obama very persuasively in choosing to forgo doing so for the time being.. I'm all for that because it's too early to be sure of the president's true intentions. If they correspond to his public avowals while campaigning or orating, he seems to me to be doing badly, If, however , his private agenda strives for change, write large, he might be doing splendidly. That is, if his very private intention is to shuck the US' waning role as the world's only superpower--and to start a retreat to a position that is more in accord with the country' history. This history is strong on neutralism, non-involvement with foreign powers, eschewing of foreign alliances,an attitude of America-First, national introversion, tariffs, and
need one say more? I mean, so far this very intelligent president has started withdrawing from Iraq, announced he would start withdrawing from Afghanistan next year , and gives signs of , shall we say, wanting to withdraw from Israel. Perhaps sensing an opportunity, our NATO allies appear to be aiding the very private Obama by distancing themselves from his superpower.--but then, that's a development that dates back to the previous president. The trouble is that I can't bring myself to believe
that Barrack Obama is capable of running a policy of realistic cynicism aka Realpolitik.

Can you really fault the President on the START agreement with Russia? Congress is the institution that is holding the treaty from being implemented, not the White House. In fact, the President's nonproliferation team has done pretty much all they can at this point. They have worked extensively with the Russian Government and showed Moscow they were serious about ridding the world of nuclear weapons when the U.S. decided to scrap a missile defense program in Eastern Europe. The administration hosted one of the largest conferences on weapons outside the United Nations system, which (to be fair) Drezner gives credit for. What else can the President do on START? The treaty is in the hands of Congress now, and the fact that they are dragging the process along shouldn't be blamed on the White House. That's like putting the blame on a police officer if his (or her) partner shoots someone in the back.

Nor would I blame Obama much on his refusal to totally abolish the use of nuclear weapons in the U.S. National Security Strategy. Granted, the President's language in the NSS and his language at the Nuclear Security Summit are a bit contradictory. But to expect the White House to drop nukes from America's security strategy is totally unreasonable. The NSS is as much of a political document as it is a strategic document. The administration had to make sure it walked a very fine line- getting its point across without alienating or angering a lot of politicians in Congress. And on the nuclear weapons front, he did that quite well. The role of nukes is weakened, and most of the major criticism was gone about a week later.

http://www.atlanticsentinel.com