An uneasy turn in foreign policy.

With the Obama administration settling into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., a serious question arises: how will foreign policy be conducted? Is it going to be reshaped? Will it stay the same? Will the American people see a mix of both? Let us explore the developments in order to come to a conclusion.

I woke up this morning to the confirmation of former Senator Hillary Clinton as the new Secretary of State. I still find this mind boggling. Can someone please tell me when the last time a new president had hired a party rival for the presidency into their cabinet? I'm pretty sure its a new one in the executive. Maybe I'm wrong. Nonetheless, someone as power-hungry as a Clinton, let alone Hillary Clinton (I call them the "Clinton package"; Bill will never be too far behind insinuating and influencing-he's not done folks, not by a long shot) will be difficult to find them self eye-to-eye with their own political rival who is currently at the helm. Don't get me wrong, the State Department answers to the president, but the question is, to what degree will Hillary answer the order of our President.

Next is the Obama administration's failure to recognize the war on terror. In the past few days, no such wording has been used when addressing foreign policy. Yet it is quite clear, with all intents and purposes, that our military is actively involved in two theaters of combat under the context of combating terrorism abroad. The new method will be to take a more diplomatic approach, which I am not opposed to per se, but sitting down with leaders who lead rogue states, let alone terrorist organizations with no recognizable government to speak of, without preconditions, dampens and significantly weakens our foreign policy clout. It seems to have, however, created warm and fuzzy feelings though. Muammar al-Gaddafi, de facto leader of Libya since 1969, has lauded President Obama for his moralistic and ethical approach toward world affairs. Thats all swell that mid-East leaders approve of the new diplomatic approach of the US, but this comes at what cost? Frankly, I care more about the preservation of our national defense policy than if Arab leaders approve of us. The main reason I say this is because, whether or not Arab leaders approve, muslim extremists and Islamo-facsists still see the US with hatred and will reamin our enemy regardless.

What alarms me most is the closing of Guatanamo Bay. With the stroke of a pen, Obama has shaken off and erased our prison for suspected terrorists of the Etch-a-sketch of US bases. Clearly, again, this is a move based upon morality and ethics due to the base's notorious reputation from the use of alleged methods of torture. It seems this closure will serve as a messege to the rest of the world that the US is taking a new road of peace and understanding to our enemies. To me, that is like shutting down an entire high school due to a few bad teachers. Realistically speaking, a nation has its self-preservation as the top priority over all other considerations, including global reputation. I do realize there is a problem with the overt use of torture, however, closing the facility that houses our prisoners of war does not warrant its closure. Most of congress, both Republicans and Democrats, voted for us to go to war, and frankly, war is hell. Its almost comical how Dems have repudiated a war they voted to go forward with, yet condemn it and shift the blame onto others while at the same time, promoting their own image as the moral and ethical beacons of hope for this nation.

Ther verdict: I clearly see a reshape of US foreign policy and a definate break from much of what the Bush administration had created. Will these new policies work? I really hope so, but I'm not giving it too much confidence. National defense is too fragile to gamble with.