With approximately thirty six hours to go (at time of writing) until President George W Bush leaves office, the question should be asked - is all that we are hearing about Obama mere hype or is it just popular relief on the part of both Americans and the world at large that Bush is finally going?

I would tend to side with the latter proposition in that the hype which is surrounding Obama is built mainly on the proposition that Bush's constitutional tenure as America's President is coming to an end and not a day too soon. This is not to dismiss the fact that this transition is historic. For one thing, it will be just amazing to see the United States take on its first African-American chief executive, only a matter of 45 years since the passing of the historic Civil Rights Act in 1964. To see an African-American family in the White House will act as a symbol that racism is not as prevalent in American society as it once was.

 Reality must seep in though too in that he must work to fulfil the progressive hopes that people, both in the US and around the world, have in him.

Domestically, Americans will want to see a President who will tackle growing unemployment, poverty and despair as economic recession threatens to become another great depression. They will want to see Obama implement long overdue health care reform so that medical coverage can be afforded to the millions of Americans who are currently denied cover - this will be easier said than done given the great hold that the private health industry has there. The American people will want to see their new leader change tack on climate change and ecological devastation by signing  America onto Kyoto and any other international environmental agreements that will follow in its wake. Many working Americans will not only want to see that their jobs are safeguarded but that the minimum wage is raised and the poorest will want to see an improvement in the state of their lives with improvements to housing and social security.

Globally, the world would like to see an America that is chastened enough to be a progressive friend to all nations and not a menacing bully boy that threatens the use of force as a false means of enhancing its international status. Therefore, Barack Obama should make good on his promise to negotiate with nations that his predecessor deemed the 'Axis of Evil' - Iran, Syria, Cuba, North Korea and even Hamas and Hezbollah in the Middle East.

Obama should ideally tell the Israelis to honour their United Nations Resolution 242 obligations and withdraw to their 1967 borders as has been the demand of the main Middle Eastern political actors including the Palestinian Authority, the Arab League, and of course Hezbollah and Hamas and, most importantly of all, the UN itself. Upon this basis, a genuine dialogue between Israel and Arab nations could begin on a level playing field, even though any withdrawal will be harder on Israel than on its Arab neighbours due to the Jewish state's intentional policy of colonising occupied Palestinian lands. If Barack Obama wants to be the first President since Jimmy Carter to strike significant success in the Middle East, then he will have to overcome the opposition of his pro-Israel advisors including incoming chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel and secretary of state-designate Hillary Clinton (amongst others) to conclude the peace deal of the century.

Obama will have to make good too on his desire to withdraw all active military forces from Iraq within the 16 month timeframe he outlined during the campaign. The primary thing that worries me is that Obama has begun to undertake some backsliding on this promise by hedging his more recent statements on Iraq with the proviso that military advice as to the situation on the ground would determine any final decisions he would take as commander-in-chief. The new administration will have the legacy of the Bush occupation to contend with as well as the new US-Iraqi security treaty stipulates that a minimum number of US boots will remain on the ground for the forseeable future even after the withdrawal of the majority of American and other occupying forces after 2011. The real intent behind the American occupation of Iraq (access to its extensive oil reserves and as a hedge against Iranian hegemony over the Persian Gulf region) will see that country remain a quisling state of the US long into Obama's tenure of the Oval Office and beyond. After all, the Bush regime has left a structural edifice in the form of a new, imperial-style, US Embassy complex that can hold up to 1000 staff in Baghdad.

Another reason to dampen the hype is Obama's proposal to engage in an Iraqi-style military surge in Afghanistan. The justification for this is the recent upsurge in violence and the difficulty that NATO occupying forces there are having in containing a resurgent Taliban. Notwithstanding, the reason for the upsurge in violence has been the increasing support being given to the Taliban who, while Islamic fundamentalist and repressive while in power, have come to be seen by many Afghans, particularly in rural areas as being a critical counterpoint to American influence in that country. The growing number of civilian casualties that have been sustained in anti-Taliban operations has largely led to this increase in support for the militant group. Obama must be aware of the long history that Afghanistan has in throwing out foreign invaders who have ranged from Alexander the Great in classical times to the Soviets in the 1980s.

What I would like to point out is that Obama doesn't want to be in the situation that Lyndon Johnson found himself in during the 1960s. Johnson, who initiated the 'Great Society' which ushered in a 'war on poverty' through programmes to improve the health, education and housing outcomes of poorer Americans, became sidetracked from it due to a real war - Vietnam. As Johnson listened to his military and civilian advisers recommend successive increases in troop numbers but for little return in terms of gains against the Vietcong and North Vietnamese, more money had to be expended on the military than on the real injustices festering at home.

The lesson therein is that Obama might be forced to utter the words "that damned war" as Johnson is said to have done to a group of advisers at the height of the Vietnam conflict. This was the case back in the 1960s as money, time and resources were drained away from the 'Great Society' programmes (that could have left Johnson with a positive historical legacy) to service the needs of the Vietnam conflict. If President Obama wants to put his 'New Deal - Mark II' into effect and to avoid falling into the same trap as Johnson, he will have to consider supporting the Afghan puppet regime's efforts to negotiate with the Taliban and their more 'moderate elements' - something which has the Bush administration has assiduously opposed. Either that or more American troops and treasure will go down the drain.

The one promise that I hope Obama does act upon is his proposal to close Guantanamo Bay, a mere concentration camp that he quite rightly has referred to as 'a stain' on America's reputation. What he will decide to replace it with is another question entirely.

What Obama will have at the beginning of his four year term is the goodwill of people, both in the US and across the world, after the grossly incompetent and aggressive Bush presidency. No presidential inauguration in the US has been as awaited as this one and to be honest, for just the historical reasons alone, it will be a thrill for me to watch as well. But while we await this moment, it is time for us to throw back the Obama mania hype before the inevitable disappointments come - and they will for all those who hold out hope for him now as the great progressive saviour of the American political soul.