Oliver Willis responds:
In the current incarnation, I'd say "no". The overarching goal of American foreign policy, first and foremost, is the safety and security of the American people. On those two vital yardsticks, the Bush administration's foreign policy (if you can call the mishmash of ad hoc guessing a "foreign policy") has failed miserably, and continues to do so.
I agree that America's foreign policy is, first and foremost, about keeping Americans safe and secure. I do not agree that Bush's foreign policy has failed in this regard.
Clearly the most persistent and pressing threat to America's security is Islamic terrorism which has been born and nurtured in the middle east for decades now. In response to that threat the Bush administration has invaded and subsequently liberated two rogue nations in that region. No longer will it be easy for any terrorist or group of terrorists to stage international operations out of those areas. Further, the liberation of the people in those areas has triggered a popular push toward freedom and democracy in other countries of the region. The outcome of that push is yet to be seen but certainly the situation in the middle east is better than it was five years ago when Afghanistan and Iraq were still ruled by tyrants and countries like Egypt, Iran and Syria didn't have to worry as much about freedom fighters within their own borders.
Now I subscribe to the idea that the best way to ensure that terrorism will flourish is to have rogue nations run by oppressive regimes. By limiting the terrorists' access to such situations the President and his administration have made the United States, and the world, a safer place.