At this point, an encore of Jimmy Carter is perhaps the best outcome for which we can hope.

At least we can rest securely in the knowledge that natural catastrophe in Japan, human catastrophe in Libya, and budget crisis and skyrocketing energy and food prices at home haven't impeded Obama's ability to complete his college basketball bracket and play golf.

Let me get this straight. Obama is incompetent. Obama has zero leadership skills. He hasn't singlehandedly resolved the mess that is the Middle East.

MikeB -- just because a policy doesn't resolve the "Middle East problem" doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but to exist as a policy it has to have some characteristics that distinguish it from a total lack of a policy (i.e. it must have some foundational principles).

I'm not saying Dr. Hanson is correct, though I do agree with him. It just may mean that Obama's policy is so nuanced it appears somewhat random (to me). Are you able to articulate Obama's Middle East policy?

Mike - Obama assured us that "this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal". Don't you feel just a tad chagrined that his hype didn't begin to match his ability?

Obama's policy on anything not in his own personal interests is "nuanced, cool but competent, distant yet aloof" and any other description you care to add for dangerously incompetent.

The "problem" of the middle east is 50+ years in the making. There are no easy solutions, only some sober albeit, difficult choices - like stopping funding for people who actively despise us.

This President has no interest in foreign affairs, and has proven it on any number of occasions - but none so blatant as current events.
Very Un-Presidential, and thoroughly Un-American. We lead - we don't follow anyone.

Funny, Rimfrel -- I ask what each Republican president's Middle East policy was, and you ask me what Obama's is?

I could probably articulate each president's policy given enough time and space, and they wouldn't differ all that much from each other's. Israel is our close friend and ally whose right to exist within secure borders is a bedrock principle of American policy, we nevertheless need to be a fair peace broker, we support freedom and democracy in Arab lands, blah blah blah.

Dr. Hanson is nothing but empty criticism. He's like a professor at a second-tier school who thinks every leading light in his field is a purveyor of pure garbage. He's conservatism-by-the-word. He knows how to blow dog-whistle notes though his snide-o-phone so as to make conservatives think they're hearing a symphony. Together with his acknowledged expertise in areas unrelated to governance in industrialized nations, this makes him an NR favorite and C-SPAN regular. I have been reading his pieces closely for the past several months. I'll assume that he's a real expert on the Peloponnesian War. But when it comes to public policy, he's a dud. A well educated, articulate, gentleman-farmer dud.

Democracy and an Islamic state are irreconcilably inconsistent. An Islamic state will continuously be trending toward an ever more extreme version of sharia law. Because the rules of sharia law are the revealed word of Allah, no democratically elected government has the power to modify sharia law, at least not for long. It follows, ironically, that the form of government which is most likely to secure the blessings of Western liberal values in a majority Muslim country is a secular dictatorship.

In addition, and regardless of the level of civil liberty practiced on the domestic front in any given secular dictatorship, a secular dictatorship tends to be more favorable to American interests than either an Islamic dictatorship or an Islamic republic. (Note too that the term "Islamic republic" is probably redundant, as there can be no such thing as a non-Islamic republic in a Muslim country, at least not for long.)

While these dirty little secrets are the truth of the matter, it is unreasonable to criticize any Western head of state who fails to say them out loud. Rather, we should judge our leaders by their results. On a proof of the pudding metric, the Bush 43 adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan score very poorly, with the long term prognosis being even worse than the present realities. The Obama examples of Egypt and Tunisia currently score as, so far so good. Ultimately both countries will devolve into theocratic, sharia-infused disasters. But for now, and at least through the general election in November 2012, they compare very favorably to Afghanistan and Iraq.

In the case of Libya, assuming Khadafy survives, domestic civil liberties are and will be non-existent. But as far as the effect on American interests, a continuation of the Khadafy regime also compares very favorably to Afghanistan and Libya. This is a condition which is also likely to persist through November 2012.

In any event, neither in Tunisia, Egypt, nor Libya has there been a meaningful opportunity for President Obama to have influenced the result; at least not short of another Iraq-style invasion. Unless we're ready to argue that we should have mounted another such invasion -- or three! -- this is another reason why it's unreasonable to criticize the President with respect to these three countries.

Let's review MikeB's contribution. As I read his screed he seems to say, after much thought, that all President's policies were the same and since Obama is a President his policies are the same. This would imply that allPresident's are equally good and therefore Obama is equally good.

I've haven't heard such nonsensical equivocation and relativism since I was an undergraduate, and I loathed it then.

Obama ran against everything he does and when faced with something new freezes and does nothing. Eventually our enemies will figure out just what our ability to react is (not a whit) and after we lose a city or two, half of the Middle East oil production and a few countries the MikeB defenders of the progressive status quo will scurry back under their sophmoric rocks and adults can return to government.

Unfortunately, by then, we'll be in a war environment and lots of people will be dieing. The only good news is moral relativism, pseudo realpolitik (not even applicable within an Islamicist driven world) and progressivism will be driven from the public space.

@ MikeB

You've been reading VDH closely for a whole bunch of undisclosed number of months? Congratulations! That obviously means you can, as you said, articulate any number of Obama's positions. Unfortunately, you don't do that. You also say you won't do that. That's too bad, because someone who's been reading VDH closely for an undisclosed number of months should know at least as much as VDH does (if not a LOT more). Someone who only seriously tackles stuff like the Peloponnesian War really should branch out and write about 9/11, college education, immigration, World War II, Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, jihad, economics....

Oh wait. People who've been reading VDH for an undisclosed number of years already know he has.