"In contrast, Mr Obama has no big foreign policy strategist.... 'The truth is that President Obama is his own Henry Kissinger -- no one else plays that role,' says a senior official. 'Every administration reflects the personality of the president. This president wants all the trains routed through the Oval Office.'"

So, with no foreign policy experience going into office, Barack Obama is now the big expert. That may explain the vainglory of hundreds of aides traveling with the President on overseas trips--bigger retinues than accompanied any of his predecessors. And it may explain the President's imperious tendency to ignore diplomatic niceties when visiting abroad; turning down dinner with the President of France, for example, so that he and his family can go out on the town.

Most importantly, to varying degrees, the supposed foreign policy "professionalism" keeps insulting and antagonizing almost all our allies and many of our friends on matters of substance:

* The "pro" in the White House, polls show, has managed to make himself the most unpopular U.S. President ever in Israel, our solid ally.

* We actually had our Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, go to Argentina and suggest to the far-left regime there that Britain should be willing to negotiate over the future of the Falkland Islands--the islands whose inhabitants ARE British and whose brief occupation by a former Argentine dictatorship Margaret Thatcher & Co. ousted in the Falkland War 30 years ago. What's to negotiate?

Meanwhile, parliamentarians in London are announcing that "the Special Relationship" of the U.S. and Britain is dead. In myriad ways we have been able to count on the Brits, and vice versa, for nearly a century. Now that priceless capital is being spent down with repeated snubs and careless slights. Thank you, White House "pro(s)".

* Mr. Obama is wise to treat with our cordial critics in China and Russia, but cannot find time for our friends in India. Very professional, that.

* And now Mrs. Clinton is in Canada telling off the Canadians. The Toronto Globe and Mail would have one believe that the Obama camp's problems with Canada have to do with the fact that a Conservative government is in charge there. But, if that is so, how is it that our Secretary of State is criticizing the Canadians, among other things, for leaving the NATO coalition in Afghanistan? The Canadian regime of Prime Minister Harper has made that choice only because of pressure from the left in Canada. In any event, the difference between attacking the present Government of Canada and criticizing the country as a whole may, in time, be lost on the citizenry.

* Our allies and trading partners look to the U.S. for leadership on trade issues, and trade also happens to be crucial to any long term revival of the U.S. economy. But, says the Financial Times article, the President just doesn't have time for it. So it languishes.

The disillusionment that many Americans have undergone is now being experienced by friends overseas. The ones who looked to Mr. Obama for exciting, positive leadership can scarcely believe what has happened. I'm afraid they will tend in the end to blame the USA, not just our President.

Such "professionalism"!