I guess it was to be expected from Obama. As his parents, relatives, friends and mentors, Obama is a U.S. hating Marxist. As such, he sides with the oppressors in Iran and with the Marxist dictators and would-be dictators working with Islamic terrorists in Latin America to destroy the U.S.

Zelaya behaved illegally (like Obama) and the Honduras military acted under the orders of the country's Supreme Court to remove that president, and to elevate the person next in line under the Honduras Constitution. This is Constitutional Democracy in action combating illegal behavior by a sitting President. That's why Obama does not like it!

Zelaya was implementing in Honduras the strategy devised by Castro and implemented by Chavez and the rest of the Marxist thugs to gain absolute power. That’s why all of them are complaining about it. They would like Zelaya to be reinstated so he can continue with his plans to enslave Honduras while pretending to act democratically. That's why Obama wants Zelaya reinstated!

Thanks for your comment. The "how" is mostly a matter of politics, domestic and international. On Iran, Heritage's "Ten Tips" are excellent: http://www.foundry.org/2009/06/05/ten-tips-for-…. On missile defense, Heritage is a leader: see http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity…. Finally, on Afghanistan and Pakistan, our S. Asia expert Lisa Curtis's Congressional testimony is very much worth reading: http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacifi….

Perhaps all of these issues have one thing in common. If you want to deal with a problem, you have, first, to be willing to admit it's a problem. The threat of missile attack on the US homeland is real: read the paper. Afghanistan is a war against the terrorists who perpetrated 9/11. And the Iranian regime has been deeply and fundamentally hostile to the US since 1979: that is what they are. The weakness of 'engagement' is that it refuses to admit that there is a world out there that you cannot talk into agreeing with you, and against which you need to take measured and sensible kinds of protection to defend freedom at home and abroad.

Ted

John Quincy Adams was the Secretary of State during the

presidency of James Monroe (1817-1825) when he realized that the United States historical experience left no choice but to welcome and give moral support to all peoples in their struggle for the recognition and consolidation of their independence. Adams was enunciating a principle of American foreign policy: namely, that while it was “the well wisher to the freedom and independence of all,” America was also “the champion and vindicator only of her own.”

In his July 4th speech of 1820, Adams continued by saying that the Declaration of Independence was “the first solemn declaration by a nation of the only legitimate foundation of civil government. It was the corner stone of a new fabric, destined to cover the surface of the globe….It stands, and must for ever stand alone, a beacon on the summit of the mountain, to which all the inhabitants of the earth may turn their eyes for a genial and saving light till time shall be lost in eternity, and this globe itself dissolve, nor leave a wreck behind.” Considering both statements, Adams is confronting Realism with Idealism.

Conventional wisdom seeks to simplify our history and codify as doctrine what is, in fact, only a part of a much more complicated truth, and that truth is that American foreign policy has an interest in both realism and idealism, and always has. Jefferson shared Franklin’s belief that idealism and realism should both play a role in foreign policy. In this nation our leaders are realists without illusion or at least they should be if they are not. We must instill this nation with ideals and principles, while fully understanding that we can not fall prey to illusion. We must believe without becoming cynical, we must be cynical without becoming cynics.

Still it is important to remember the remainder of Adams speech of July 4, 1820. Adams continued by saying that the Declaration of Independence was “the first solemn declaration by a nation of the only legitimate foundation of civil government. It was the corner stone of a new fabric, destined to cover the surface of the globe….It stands, and must for ever stand alone, a beacon on the summit of the mountain, to which all the inhabitants of the earth may turn their eyes for a genial and saving light till time shall be lost in eternity, and this globe itself dissolve, nor leave a wreck behind.”

You spent several paragraphs defining the problem of engagement (I agree with your analysis)…Yet your tidy summary of "what we need to do to defeat the Taliban, to deal firmly with Iran, and protect ourselves and friends from the Iranian missile threat" is floated without a definition. As an accomplished scholar in international affairs, could you lend a few tactics that could help us understand not only what should be done, but how? Thank you!