I'll totally agree with you about his ineptitude overall, and the gaffe about not having a strategy doesn't help his case (although, I would argue that frequently this is the case with foreign policy with both Obama and Bush, because despite having fought this type of conflict for going on 14 years now, it's still a very new type of warfare). I just don't think "weak" is the right term for it. I mean, this is a guy that will order as many drone strikes as I do beers on a Friday night if he's in the mood. While I fundamentally disagree with much of his response, I think when he finally does commit to a course of action, he goes balls to the wall with it, so to speak.
And I can't fault him too much for talking about domestic issues, especially since today was Labor Day. I don't think he's putting foreign policy on the back burner to really focus on the minimum wage or global warming. That was mostly just rhetoric to rally the base when it comes to the midterms, which, I mean, is technically part of his job. Agenda setting and whatnot. I'm sure his real focus is on foreign policy, as misguided as that focus may be.
I guess I just try to make the point that, hey, I'm not a big fan of the guy, but foreign policy is anything but simple, and he, the joint chiefs, security council, advisors, etc., have access to a lot of information that we don't. So it's easy for us to be overly critical sometimes. The point remains that I haven't been fond of his responses to foreign policy issues, but I focused on the Middle East a great deal while getting my education, so he's treading on territory close to my academic home here. But, as always, it's just my take on it.
Just depends on how you wanna use the word "weak" I suppose.