Bad ideology + no experience =
 

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhbama.

good point.

1) The Marshall Plan, for starters.
2) The formation of NATO and keeping the Soviets in check.
3) Managing the scale of the Korean War (both policy and war related, IMO). Ironically, Truman gets blame for dropping the bombs, but he should get credit for holding nuclear weapons in check. There was tremendous pressure to use them again following WWII.

The Berlin Airlift
The Marshall Plan/reconstruction of Europe
Reconstruction of Japan
NATO
Policy of Soviet containment

In his last state of the union address he not only anticipated but described in explicit detail the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union, and how the foregoing would bring it about.

Is that enough?

I would mention successful conclusion to WWII and salvation of South Korea from totalitarianism, but that seems to be excluded from the scope of your question.

His foreign policy successes may seem like common sense today but then they were counterintuitive. See the Verseilles treaty.

I guess you can say those things happened under him, not sure I would give him credit for them. It is, after all, the marshall plan, not the Truman plan. Btw, I give him credit for dropping the bomb, not blame.

Or Plain. I think it applies to both, except she is only VP.

All right, I posted without thinking. I concur with you and Lebowski. The irnoy is that I really like Truman. Itwas a stupiud post.

Which is why I see broad criticisms of Bush as premature (or perhaps immature). His success or failure as a president will bear itself out in time.

Foreign policy "experience" is so vague. It really depends on one's mindset, how much you've exposed yourself to other ideologies and ideals that differ from America's, your understanding of how those ideologies interact on the world stage, and what kind of role you think America ought to play in the world.

Administrating the particulars can be left to subordinates.

Truman also fought for and succeeded in reaffirming the principle of democratic control of the military. Again, in the context of history, this was no small feat. Americans were bullish on their military after WWII, and as we know from the McCarthy hearings, communist paranoia led to shameful abridging of civil liberties. His popularity was low at the time he fired MacCarthur (a huge war hero) for insubordination in Korea.

On the subject of civil liberties, his record was impeccable. Before Neville Chamberlain's infamous speech he was sounding the alarm about Nazi Germany, and condemning U.S. refusal to admit Euro-Jewish immigrants. He favored a Civil Rights act and spoke about race relations as if he were a man of the twenty first century.

This is like blame the coach if the team loses but credit the players if they win.

Doesn't this point just confirm my original point about Palin/Obama? I get sick of these foreign policy wonks thinking they practice inside some black box. They don't. Foreign policy can be learned, and experts are always consulted. It's true that all Truman did is pick a dream team cabinet--Marshall, Forestall, Acheson, et al.

Geez, I said I was taking a stupid position (I am only very rarely good at trolling), what do I need to do here?