AMERICA'S FRIENDSHIP & ALLIANCES.

The Iowa caucuses voting has come and gone, at least for another four years, when it will be "deja vu" all over again. It will be quiet there for now, as the Republican Party candidates move on to New Hampshire, South Carolina and other places to continue with their campaigns to choose a nominee.

The Obama campaign operatives will be honing their strategies to meet the person, who will become the Republicans' favorite choice.

They will be ready, if they are not already, to engage President Barack Obama's opponent with the rigidity and seriousness that the 2012 general election will demand, for it will be one that will dictate the future direction America will be heading.

Voters will also be on their toes to evaluate and decide, who will be more prepared to lead the United States into the future. They have been bombarded with ads of promises in Iowa and across the country by the Republican candidates; therefore they must be given the right to make up their own minds, as to whom they will prefer to be their leader.

However, the outside world has never thrived on promises; and only appropriate action has always been the objective of nations, who have envisaged peace for themselves and with others.

The prospects at present do not equate to a peaceful world, with economic upheavals engulfing Europe, and as Iran is brazenly showing signs that its policies are teetering on starting a conflagration that will affect, not just the Middle East, but also the rest of the world, a tested leadership will be more attractive than any other.

From what the Republican candidates have been say, except Ron Paul, who will choose isolationism, they will indulge in policies that will fully engage the U.S. in world affairs; but whether those policies will be belligerent in nature or not, they will not say.

America needs to be cautious in its foreign policy as a whole, to not get into disputes that do not pose any threat to its interests. The act of "policing" the world is getting to be more impossible now than ever, as it has shown to drain resources that will be needed to improve the economy at home.

The protective wars, such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan, will have to be fought, as Al Qaeda and other such organizations have covert plans that must be dismantled before they take effect.

That the intelligence community will have its hands full, even if America is not fighting in a physical war; and as the best defense is thwarting what the enemy has in mind, any piece of information, however little, that will be useful for its National Security must never be ignored.

The nation must therefore be vigilant; but with that must be a kind of leadership that will cater to peace more than conflict.

Obama has demonstrated that attitude during his tenure of office, and there is no indication that he will deviate from it; and so, that must give the assurance that he will go along with other similar minded leaders to achieve global peace.

The contrast will then be what his opponent in the next general election will espouse, in terms of how domestic and foreign matters will be handled. Will he or she have the same ideas as Obama to confront the nation's problems? Is the world going to look on the U.S. as a friendly nation?

Nobody can predict what the other person will do; and that makes it easy for many to say that changing horses in midstream, come this November, will be inadvisable.

That will not favor one person against another, or a Democrat against a Republican. It will only show that to have America's best interest at heart must be the direction that a person must pursue; one that has been shown to be practical, or one that is just a blueprint assessment of what Obama's opponent can do to keep America safe, and be able to maintain the friendship of other nations, as well as an alliance such as NATO, to remain in place.

He or she must be able to do all that at the same time; and that is a huge responsibility, and therefore, America must only vote for the person, who can carry it.