The United States is the 800 lb. gorilla in the world today.  We have the strongest economy, strongest military and biggest attitude of pretty much everyone else on the face of the planet and, with this administration, we have gotten into the very bad habit of throwing our weight around as we see fit.  If we can replace the current administration with one less determined to prove that the American (and Republican/Democratic Party) way is the only right way I believe our relationship with the rest of the world will improve considerably.

Afghanistan was and is a "good war" and that situation would probably have been over by now if we hadn't diverted our attention and resources by also getting involved in the "bad war" in Iraq.

The world is a much smaller and much more dangerous place than it used to be and no matter how big, strong and determined we may be as a country, we cannot afford to try and go it alone in dealing with the world's problems.

As President, one of my first goals would be to work towards repairing our standing with the rest of the world. 

Al Qaeda is a world problem, not just a problem of the United States or of democracies.  As a world problem, Al Qaeda needs to be dealt with by the world together, not the United States going it alone (most of the time). 

Don't get me wrong, the United Nations is mainly a bureaucracy that is truly incapable of solving any real problems (look at Sudan, Rwanda, etc to see how ineffective they can be), but if we as a nation work to build a true coalition before moving then the results are always a lot better for us and the world as a whole.  Remember how high our standing in the rest of the world was after the first gulf war.  Where is our standing now with the world community?  As was recently stated by columnist Tom Hennessy, "Instead of viewing the terrorists as an enemy to be defeated through military action, see them as part of an international criminal conspiracy to be dismantled and destroyed by international police action."

We do need a coalition police force.  We do not need the US to be the world's policeman.  For one thing, most other countries resent it and, second, we aren't very good at it. We are in places we shouldn't be and not in places we should be, so let's not be anywhere unless we are asked and there is a compelling reason for us to be there.  If a dictator in Africa is allowing people to hack the arms off of each other, then maybe we have a moral obligation (not the right) to do something to stop it.  Beyond that, we shouldn't be spending all of our money stationing our soldiers all over the world.  "Walk softly and carry a big stick" was excellent advice. I propose that we stick to that advice by greatly reducing our presence overseas and focusing our attention on the defense and security of our own country.

Iraq:

The current debate concerning Iraq is very polarizing and seems to settle on two choices: stay or leave.  However, once again from the same column by Tom Hennessy comes this advice, "The choice is not simply to stay or leave.  There is a middle course: terminate the combat mission, offer advice, training, material support and economic assistance as long as there appears to be a viable Iraqi government, launch a diplomatic effort to keep the violence in Iraq from destabilizing the region.  In the end, the Iraqis will decide their fate. We cannot do so." 

The Direction of Our Foreign Policy under My Administration:

The above seems like very good advice for all of our foreign relations now and in the future.  We didn't destroy Russia and communism, the Russians decided to give it up themselves.  We didn't tear down the wall in Germany, the Germans did that.  We didn't save Vietnam from Communism, but the Vietnamese have become one of the most dynamic "free" market economies in the Southeast Asia region.  We may have played a part in helping them make those decisions, but the fact is that they had to do it themselves.

Everyone and every country have a different personality and that means they try to solve problems in a different way.  Doesn't mean they are wrong, just different and, who knows, by working together we may find out someone else has a better solution to the problem.

A major tenant of our foreign policy, therefore, has to be somewhat similar to that of an advisor who says, "Well, that isn't how I'd approach it, but if you're going to do it at least let me give you some advice and support."  Then be there to offer support and advice if needed.  I think the US might be pleasantly surprised at how well the rest of the world does without us trying to tell them how to do everything our way.  The rest of the world would probably appreciate it as well and we will get along with them a whole lot better as a result.