President Obama presented the case for his foreign policy last week – again.  He addressed the cadet corps at West Point in what was billed as a comprehensive strategic statement for the balance of his tenure in office, and for America's future.  Obama's speech came just over a week after John Kerry issued his own call for America to take a large and active role in the world — urging Americans not to "allow a hangover from the excessive interventionism of the last decade to lead now to an excess of isolationism in this decade."  It set the pitch and tone for the President's address. [1]

Accountability is on the endangered species list. No - not the word. Indeed, “accountability” reverberates around the electronic ether almost as frequently as “thwarking.” It is the reality of persons, especially public persons, taking responsibility for acts of malfeasance in ways that entail exemplary punishment and personal costs.

Defending and renewing the global order is a priority for the United States and Europe. An important part of this effort will be accomplished if transatlantic partners can successfully engage four “global swing states” — Brazil, India, Indonesia and Turkey — in the management of global issues, because of their geopolitical and economic status, as well as their desire to have a stronger voice in the various international forums. Successful engagement of these nations will be key to preserving the international order and U.S. leadership.

The second term of Barack Obama’s presidency has introduced new Foreign Policy leadership that suggests changes for the future. The White House will likely centralize foreign policy making and the Treasury Department may play a bigger role in the country’s global engagement. Despite new policy direction, no framework for the strategic renewal of U.S. global leadership has emerged.

The future candidates for the 2016 Republican presidential primary will be expected to develop a clear foreign policy agenda and prove the GOP’s credibility on foreign affairs issue.

In an effort to preserve its global leadership, the United States has engaged in a “double rebalancing”; a geopolitical rebalancing, as illustrated by the “pivot to Asia,” and a rebalancing of means, with the Obama administration increasingly advancing diplomatic and economic negotiations (economic statecraft), emphasizing the indirect uses of military force and opening up reinforced dialogue with new actors.

A quick look at the news dealing with the Syrian uprising the last year shows a slow progression from protests and civil resistance towards violence. The Obama Administration’s policy dealing with what many have called “slow motion revolution” has evolved in fits and starts, with mixed episodes of confusion, assertiveness, denial and drift.