This is the dangerous part:
The world, therefore, is facing at least 14 months with the United States being at best reactive and at worse non-responsive to events. Obama has never been a foreign policy president; events and proclivity (I suspect) have always drawn him to domestic matters. But between now and the election, the political configuration of the United States and the dynamics of his presidency will force him away from foreign policy. ...
The point of this analysis is to try to show the dynamics that have led the United States to this position, and to sketch the international landscape in broad strokes. The U.S. president will not be deeply engaged in the world for more than a year. Thus, he will have to cope with events pressed on him. He may undertake initiatives, such as trying to revive the Middle East peace process, but such moves would have large political components that would make it difficult to cope with realities on the ground. The rest of the world knows this, of course. The question is whether and how they take advantage of it.
My question is whether somebody in the rest of the world goes too far in taking advantage of our leadership class's inward focus in the mistaken belief that we cannot react. Reaching too far and taking too big a chunk of our hide will not stay overseas but will resonate on the internal political debate. Americans will react badly to a sharp defeat overseas. And even a president uninterested in foreign affairs at the best of times will have to defend American interests to avoid further losses in the domestic realm.
Americans want and don't want a variety of things. But losing abroad never sits well with a majority of our people. And the bottom line is that we are big enough to absorb even a big hit at the start of a war and come out swinging to flatten someone who thinks a quick shot when we aren't looking can defeat us for good.
