Politics are getting interesting. Obama and Hillary are starting to trade jabs. Interestingly, some people appear to have realized that whoever wins the White House will need a real foreign policy, not just a "whatever you want to try" policy.
Case in point: Obama. Hillary dropped in the polls after calling part of Obama's suggested approach to foreign policy "irresponsible." What was the suggested approach? No strings attached meetings with everybody currently on the White House black list (North Korea, Iran, Syria, etc.). Apparently, (1) Obama's supporters think it's a grand strategy, and (2) Democrats as a whole think that it's a great way to run the State Department.
Obama's recently stated that if Pakistan doesn't do its part, he would be happy to withdraw from Iraq to invade Pakistan. Strangely, the same people who want to talk things over with Iran and Syria (that is, the same people sending checks to Obama) think this strategy is just as grand. It's funny because it falls under the categories "war of choice," "illegal under international law," and "picking a fight with a nuclear power with a vastly larger military and population than Iraq."
But even better, it doesn't sound like a real strategy. It sounds like something voters want to hear, but nobody wants to see tried. Really, can a Harvard-educated "leader" be so daft? Will our new military strategy be "surrendering current wars in order to start new ones?"
Maybe eventually he'll get some real experts to give him decent advice.
UPDATE looks like he really needs good advice. And this is why I have been cautious bellieving that Barack Hussein Obama was the Great Political Savior the US has hoped for.