It's a new world out there and I'd say we've been feeling our way through things internationally since the fall of the Soviet Union. I would say all three of the post-Cold War presidents have dithered with the only departure being W's more aggressive tone. Of course, in the wake of 9/11, a more aggressive posture became necessary. I thought the war in Iraq would be a disaster because I figured winning the "war" would be easy, but keeping the peace would not. I'm not going to give W a pass, but, again, in the absence of an enemy we know how to fight, it's all going to be trial-and-error to some extent. Makes caution a more operative watchword.
I don't know what you do in Syria. Arm the rebels and topple Assad and every Christian in the country is either dead or in hiding. Egypt? I agree with Glenn Beck once every five years and I guess I'm good for a bit because I agreed with him when he predicted that Egypt was going to be a mess after the fall of Mubarak. I'm not apologizing for repressive dictators and I think the Arab Spring will be a positive development in the long run, but anyone who thought the situation was magically going to transform into a mature democracy without some major stumbling was kidding themselves. The Morsi government was democratically elected, but you know those guys were going to overreach and Egypt, if not as secular in tone as some believe, has had extensive contact with the West going back to the Roman Empire. It sits at a crossroads and because of that, it will be very difficult for a political party similar to the Muslim Brotherhood to institute and maintain the kind of regime they likely envision.
Foreign policy ain't for sissies. Woodrow Wilson's legacy has been a lot of intemperate moralizing on our part without much consideration of realpolitik. I know that sounds bloodless, but it's a dangerous world out there (even when you lap the field about five times in terms of military power). But all that power doesn't mean much in a world of skirmishes. One of the areas where I thought Rumsfeld was right was in his attempt to transform our military strategy and tactics for a more mobile world that probably isn't going to see traditional battlefronts. Of course, then he guesses wrong on the force levels needed to the "peace" part of the Iran situation and we all have witnessed what happened there.
Don't think I'm letting Obama off the hook. I don't like the drone position, but I guess it beats more kids coming home in boxes. I don't know if he's being tough enough on Iran, but what option do we have beyond the sanctions. I don't think a "hot" war in the region really helps keep things stable at a time when stability is going to be needed. Like I said, it's a new world with new types of challenges and it's probably going to be a couple of decades before the foreign policy/defense superstructure knows how to proceed with greater confidence.
