I tend to agree. It's a little disingenuous to expect people to have a developed model of foreign policy in areas we are not privy to pertinent details. That doesn't mean we should not criticize an incoherent foreign policy of a sitting president with six years tucked under his belt. The world is in disarray almost anywhere you look and yet Obama thinks it is reasonable to tell folks that things are better than they have ever been. I doubt much of the world would agree with him, but certainly, from the view on the golf course of life, things probably do look peachy.
There's an old saying that "if I'm silent, people will think I'm stupid; but if I speak, then they'll know I'm stupid". If one is simply coming here and only offering destructive criticism and not any constructive criticism, then to me they're simply acting as "trolls".
No one expects "experts" only to post here, and I frankly don't think it's likely that any of us qualify anyway, but for some to seemingly always nit-pick in a destructive manner, nothing constructive is being added.
Obama can and has been criticized by many, including myself even though I generally support him on most items, so I'm not saying nor implying that destructive criticism needs to be stifled. But with some it just goes on and on and..., with nothing positive being added.
BTW, his foreign policy actually is quite coherent even if some can't see it. This doesn't imply it's right, but there is a consistent thread that runs through it. Much like Lincoln, who's Obama's historical hero, Obama prefers to operate from consensus when possible. If one actually reads any good biography on Lincoln, this is the same methodology he generally used, only becoming "a leader" when push came to shove, such as when the issue of slavery was tearing the country apart. BTW, Lincoln was not well liked by so many, not only in the other party but even his own.
