I disagree with the allegation that the foreign policy being executed by this administration is not thoughtfully developed and ineffective.

One doesn't have to agree entirely with the foreign policy being executed by this administration, but to refuse to recognize the effectiveness of their efforts to renew and improve relations with many countries simply avoids the facts.

While I would prefer that the official foreign policy of the U.S. which was prepared and published about 4-5 years ago be renewed and updated, there is certainly a renewed effort to expand our foreign relations footprint which seems to be working. The fact that the "official" foreign policy hasn't been re-done is not unusual. Sometimes as much as a decade passes between official published revisions.

In less than a year this administration has accomplished major improvements in relations with Russia, and has continued the re-focus of the war on terrorism from Iraq to Afghanistan which began at the end of the Bush administration. We are much more effective in fighting the war on terror within Pakistan as the result of efforts to improve relations with them, which was done with a very firm hand. During Obama's first year, he's had to re-establish relations with the U.K., which also had a change in political leadership and may have another as the result of an election only a year or so after Gordon Brown was elected Prime Minister. Our relations there haven't improved, but they haven't worsened either. It's hard to hit a target moving as fast as the English political situation. And it's not as if this President didn't have a few other things to worry about during his first 13 months on the job. Our relations with the rest of western Europe, particularly Germany and France, are notably improved over what they were at the end of the Bush administration.

I think a lot more time should be expended in our relations with Mexico. Personally, I believe that Mexico, which shares a several thousand mile border with us, presents significant threats in several different ways. I just don't sense enough attention being paid to those threats.

There has been little movement in foreign affairs as regards South America or Africa, but their value to us is probably a longer term consideration anyway.

As far as the Middle East, Obama has been far more active in seeking some sort of lasting peace between Israel and Palestine than his predecessor. His recent diss of Bibi Netenyahu was totally justified in the view of most foreign policy observers--and mine as well. Remember, Netenyahu purposely embarrassed Vice President Biden while he was actually visiting Netenyahu in Israel. Then Netenyahu continued his contempt for relations with the U.S. by purposely restating his decision to expand their occupation of Jerusalem in a speech to the Israel lobby group on the very night he met with President Obama. While we'll never really know, it's fair to assume that our strong disagreement with the decision to expand settlements into Jerusalem was a major part of the 90-minute meeting between Obama and Netenyahu that very afternoon.

Make no mistake, Israel is still a strong ally of the U.S. But to the extent their conduct interferes with our attempts to seek a lasting peace in the region and puts our military at increased risk, a concern unanimously held by our Joint Chiefs of Staff, that's a situation that must be dealt with with more firmness than we've seen in recent years. We had a similar problem when Menachim Begin was the Israeli president and it got handled in very tough ways, although in more privacy than the events of recent weeks.

But your criticism that there is no reason or thought in the current foreign policy of the U.S. is just plain wrong. Just because you dislike a political leader doesn't necessarily make everything he does, every decision he makes and every policy he embraces wrong.