It's a little early to consider the Libya affair a success.

First of all, from an Obama critic, he now has a win. I could argue that the Bin Laden raid was something any US President would have done.

Now, to turn this into a political/campaign argument, Obama has to significantly reduce forces in Afghanistan.

If Obama reduces forces in Afghanistan, he can successfully argue that he fixed two situations that were draining US military and financial resources, in Iraq by withdrawing and in Afghanistan by surging (to fix idiot Bush's mistakes) and then cutting way back.

But if, next summer, there are still more US troops in Afghanistan than when Obama entered office, then the argument will fail rhetorically because he just exchanged one big, pretty hopeless counterinsurgency in Iraq for another in Afghanistan.

If Obama can get down to 40,000 troops in Afghanistan without Taliban flags flying over Kabul or Kandahar, then the argument helps him.

No matter what happens in Libya from here on out. If Libya settles down, it's a big win. If Libya becomes Somalia, he gets points for not sending US troops in.

1.) "LEADING FROM BEHIND," humanitarian death tolls are unfortunate, however, and estimates of Libyan count is unreliable. Surely, you wouldn't argue though that it was more deaths than would have occurred without NATO? Additionally, not one, ONE, NATO solider lost their life in combat.

2.) "RUSSIA" The First Nuclear Arms Control Treaty (New START) in well over a decade is a pretty solid indication of a successful reboot in US/Russia Relations

3.) "CHINA"...I'm confused

5.) I don't follow, you'd prefer putting troops in harms way to capture alive?

7.) If you look at the Independent Report Published by the former head of the IAEA, you'd see that Iran is actually lacking in the centrifuge technology needed to enrich enough HEU for a bomb. That is news to celebrate, no?

8.) "SYRIA" What do you propose?

9.) Intel was "obviously' from Bush era interrogations? citation?

10.) Religious freedom is the bedrock of the U.S, the location and religious affiliation is irrelevant. Would you oppose a baptist church near the cite of the Oklahoma Federal building? How does referring to the Ft. Hood Shooter as a Muslim benefit anyone besides reinforce the (admittedly, misguided) view among many Muslims that Americans are anti-Muslim. GITMO has eroded U.S. Soft Power.

Fox News is great for entertainment, less so as a credible source of news.

The last part of imaginary Obama Speech is brilliant. I would suppose Obama WH stupid not to try a variation of that imaginary speech. This is yeoman's service to Obama Campaign.

That is how Obama needs to argue for a Congressional Majority as like in Parliamentary System. Unless he gets that working majority, there is no use of his second term.

"With Muammar Gaddafi's timely demise, it's becoming harder and harder to argue that Barack Obama's foreign policy is a failure".

I almost gave up on the article after reading the first sentence.

I'd agree that the majority of the GOP candidates need to bone up on foreign policy, but how about the Obama administration?

The US no longer has any allies because they have ALL been alienated.

Obama destroyed the special relationship with the UK during his first week in office by sending back a bust of Churchill, and he's never looked back.

http://is.gd/O3usaJ

And how's the Middle East working out under Obama?

Well chances are that every Arab state that's undergone a revolution will soon be headed by Islamic fundamentalists instead of a dictator; so choose your poison!

Trying to do an Obama foreign policy report card on the entirety of USFP is not useful. Some interests and policies continue from one administration to another and some are novel. For those with continuity Obama can get credit for NOT changing what was in place, but that credit is minor as any president would likely have made the same decision. He should, however, get full credit or blame for those policies which are novel.

Policies that are continuities and thus Obama get minor credit or minor balme:
- Iraq withdraw...kept mostly to script of Bush-era SOFA agreement

-Afghan surge...was in the works as the draw-down in Iraq was occurring under
Bush
- Osama..duh

- Drone strikes...escalation of previous policy

- START treaty...least meaningful arms control treaty ever, and continuity with de facto Bush policy

- Middle East Peace ...just not under our control. Obama could not make it happen nor does he cause its continued elusiveness

Policies that Obama owns for better or worse

- the Russian reset...stupid to ever thing we were going to get anything meaningful from Russia...hung out allies for the chimerical hope of transcending Russian national interests

- Ally relations in general. There is some truth to the critique that Obama has treated several allies poorly int he hopes of curry favor with regimes that were never going to come around

- Supremely naive Iran policy..at first. Once it was on obvious failure he reverts make to the staus quo from previous administrations

-Withdrawal deadline from Afghanistan. When are idiots going to learn that setting a deadline just tells your enemies that you will be leaving and therefore just wait you out. The deadline completely undermined any possibility of COIN working (and COIN is tough even in the best of circumstances)

- Indecision on the Arab Spring. Equivocation and foot-draging means we got the worst of both worlds. We lose the friendly dictators that had help implement US policy, but we lost the goodwill that could have accrued form getting out in front of the movement. Decide fro God's sake!

- Libya for good or ill. Good..crazy Gaddafi gone. bad..we cut a deal with the guy to give up WMD programs in exchange for reentry into the world...then help overthrow him. Any future effort a counterproliferation through negotiation is doomed now since the lesson is if you give up a nuke program the US may still help overthrow you. Every dictator with nuclear ambitions just took a big lesson. N. Korea is a better path than Libya. We have to ask if the possibility of a less nasty government in Tripoli (and it is only a possibility) was worth the huge hit to peaceful nuclear counterproliferation.

- Libya part 2...why delay on intervention if you are going to do it. Early action would have likely led to regime downfall in days..delayed action means half a year of civil war.

Outliers

- ground zero mosque. Last time I check the federal government plays no rol ein zoning issues inside cities. Just not a federal issue.

Ron Paul was saying the same things when George W. Bush was President, so I don't think he's the best example of incoherence-- or certainly not of opportunism and only saying things to criticize Obama because he's with the other party.

Naturally, of course, a lot of that goes on. One must for example conclude that much of the Democratic Party opposition-- and that of Obama himself-- to George W. Bush's policies were also pure political opportunism, consider that, as noted in your post, Obama has not only embraced but gone further than Bush on many issues that they criticized.

"With Muammar Gaddafi's timely demise, it's becoming harder and harder to argue that Barack Obama's foreign policy is a failure."

What sort of person views yet another nail in the coffin of Constitutional Rule of Law as a positive development?

Dan. The fact that Congress is complicit in the continued shredding of the Constitutional Separation of Powers - "allows" presidents from both parties to steadily chip away at all foreign policy restraints inherent in the Constitution's clear delineation of powers - doesn't absolve this president and his predecessors of blithely violating their oaths of office.

The fact that Barak Hussein Obama is supposedly a Constitutional scholar makes his betrayal even more disheartening. At least with Bush we know that he actually believed the presidency had the inherent powers he claimed it did. There's no way Obama doesn't understand what he's done.

William R. Barker
www.usalyright.blogspot.com

I get a kick out of folks who "credit" Obama with "getting" Obama.

As if what... as if once more than a few people knew that WE knew where he was Obama could simply "ignore" the information and leave bin Laden to continue his daily routine forever?

I mean, jeez, Dan... bad enough Obama waited as long as he did to "pull the trigger"... but delay aside, President Obama had no choice but to eventually give the "go" order.

Once critical mass was attained where the knowledge of bin Laden having been located had gone beyond the "inner, inner circle" Obama's only choice was to eventually issue the "go" order or else risk the almost sure eventuality of the public finding out he had "pulled a Clinton" and let bin Laden slip from our fingers.

Now the actions President Reagan took after the Achille Lauro... THOSE were actions that can be credited to Reagan and only Reagan.

"Getting" bin Laden? If bin Laden had bee "found" during Bush's term than "Bush" would have got him. If Hillary Clinton rather than Barak Obama was president then she would have "got him."

What I'm pointing out is that the only people who really "got" bin Laden were the SEALS. Obama giving the order was a foregone conclusion.

If anything, Obama should be criticized for allowing (ordering...???) the SEALS to kill rather than capture Obama.

(Yeah, Dan... you know as well as I do that the SEALS were capable of "capturing" bin Laden rather than killing him. Perhaps the orders were "sub-textual" rather than explicit, but com'on... let's not be so naive as to assume that anything other than bin Laden's death during the operation was the true mission.)

BILL
(William R. Barker)

Although I'm fairly simpatico with Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul when it comes to an "American First" foreign policy and what that would actually entail as opposed to the cartoon caricatures dismissively used to defect serious discussion of the matter, allow me to look at foreign policy from a more... umm... traditional perspective.

You want a REAL "strong" foreign policy... harken back to the Reagan years.

Since then... one bumble after another... Pappy Bush... Clinton... Dubya... now Obama.

Who lost Turkey?

(OK... you wanna argue Turkey's not yet totally "lost"... fine; but you know what I'm saying!)

Who "allowed" North Korea to become a nuclear weapons armed power?

Who "lost" Russia and how did they do so? (Yeah... across several administration...)

I could go on and on, but basically even as we went from plain ol' "Superpower" to "Hyperpower" we as "Hyperpower" laid the groundwork for our own decline.

So... past administration failures acknowledged and put aside, what about Obama?

Well... how many Americans have died in Iraq and Afghanistan since Obama (and HRC) took over?

How's our relationship with Pakistan fared?

Hmm... hey Dan... do you recall what occurred on March 26, 2010...? Hmm...?

Hey... Dan... what's front and center on this afternoon's Drudge page? Something about... er... BOSNIA...?!?!

How's that pirate problem being dealt with? (God bless the Indian navy!)

Have Mexico become more or less stable since Obama swore the oath of office?

Are you impressed with Obama 's and Clinton's Central and South American policies? (Personally I'm still ashamed of how they backed the bad buys in Honduras!)

Ah... but lay all that aside... let's get back to that "bottom line" I reference in this post's title:

Is the United States stronger or WEAKER as compared to China after almost three years of the Obama administration?

(Hmm... I guess my all-caps in WEAKNESS kinda gives my view away...)

Dan... seriously... forget the bust of Winston Churchill and who bows how low to whom. I'm talking the true bottom line here.

BILL

If Obama reduces forces in Afghanistan, he can successfully argue that he fixed two situations pc geeks that were draining US military and financial resources, in Iraq by withdrawing and in Afghanistan by surging (to fix idiot Bush's mistakes) and then cutting way back.