Many Democrats such as Obama, and such as Pelosi& Kerry & Dodd ( neglecting David Duke"s trip to Damascus) with their pilgrimages to Damascus, give the impression that their only knowledge of the Middle East came from reading three articles in the NYT.

Given all the efforts that US Presidents have expended on the "peace process" in the last 60 years, anyone with a minimum of knowledge of that would realize the US cannot order the Middle East the way a child would arrange a checkers board.

For all the talk about "end to unilateralism" and "cooperation with neighbors", one would think that the Middle
East, of all places is one place where we would realize that hubris about American power would not fit.

If we can fix it, then why hasn't it been fixed in the last 60 years? BTW, "Hamas" reminds me of the Spanish word "jamás"- very similar prnunciations- which means NEVER.

I have no idea how successful Obama will be in the Israeli situation.

It depends only partly on his work and skills. There are other parties involved which no one person controls. And those parties themselves change over time.

This last sentence caught my eye:

"Plan for war - because Obama knows nothing about keeping the peace."

Perhaps:

"Plan for surrender."

comes closer.

I don't think Obama will surrender. There's room under his bus for Middle East Peace.

When it does come to war, one that is Obama's idea, I think he'll go into it in a way that will make Bush look like peace-loving hippie.

Donna B.: When it does come to war, one that is Obama's idea, I think he'll go into it in a way that will make Bush look like peace-loving hippie.

All he has to do is to treat them the way he did his primary opponents. After all, Chicago politics doesn't do nice.

Donna, Gringo: I agree that Obama would fight to the last for his own power and his associates.

My thought was more that Obama may very well toss Americans under the bus.

After all, he has the power - and it is is massive - to kick hell out of any Americans who prove surly and unhelpful in the days ahead.

And if he does I expect as much protest by the rabbits that live in my yard as from the Congress, courts, the law professors, or the ACLU.

There would be silence from sea to shining sea from those who pose as champions of liberty.

The squeaks of Limbaugh would be unheard. And sometimes people disappear.

But Obama has fewer options abroad, the world is simply too big with too many people.

The dilemma of our power is this:

The US has long been able to destroy anyone anywhere. And yet we are unsure we can control even the most remote and weak peoples.

So Obama begins with unlimited physical power in the US. But he must negotiate from economic and demographic weakness overseas. The obvious temptation is to suppress dissent domestically.

Several Presidents in crisis faced the same problem. Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, and HST all acted as needed.

In general I think they got it about right.

I don't mention more recent Presidents simply because that would introduce a lot of unhelpful passion into the topic.

Nothing about Obama so far makes me believe he will not gladly go far farther than other Presidents. And I do not recall another who faces less restraint.

>"It will be the policy of my administration to actively and aggressively seek a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians, as well as between Israel and its Arab neighbors,"

A fool's errand. As long as muslims hate jerws, there will be no peace. That Obama doesn't seem to get this speaks to his ignorance of history.