This is an interesting question. I think it's premature to think about the structure of second term policy (beyond it's broad contours, e.g. strategic rebalancing (the new term for the pivot)) until two things happen.
(1) top cabinet posts have to be settled with a new Sec Def (Panetta is surely going and we'll know the replacement in the next week and a half or so), Secretary of State (Clinton is leaving) , and CIA Director. Also, there will be high turnover senior staffs in national security organizations, especially in the National security council. These personalities will play a key role in driving policy decision for the second term. No major new decisions will be made without them.
(2) The state of play on the fiscal cliff has to run its course in the near term. With the threat of sequestration looming (including potential $550 billion cuts to defense organizations over the next decade) no new major decision will be made. We should have an idea of how this will shake out as soon as the end of this week, though likely a bit later.
With both of these issues addressed, there will be enough stability for the administration to start making decisions. And depending on how these issues shape up -- who's in, who's out, what the deficit deal looks like -- we'll have a better idea of the constraints that will factor on policy making.
That said, the overall parameters or inclinations that will set the agenda for decisions are fairly clear. There will be to deepend and better define strategic re balancing (I agree with the poster above). Obamas first trip after realiction was to ASEAN/Thailand/Burma/Cambodia on the heels of Panetta and Clinton -- pretty clear signal if there was any doubts. There will be a particular question, I think, on US economic engagement in Asia and US power in SE Asia. US military response to China is pretty much locked in at this point with Air-Sea Battle(budgets will be a big factor here).
The top legal advisor to DoD recently has made remarks about conceptualizing the end of the war on terrorism/ the expiration of the Authoriization on the Use of Military Force v. al Qaeda and affiliates, which I understand to be pretty representative of advanced thinking in the administration. It's also my understanding that in connection with this, the administration is taking oversight and procedures governing drones more seriously (the white house got spooked by having to prepare briefing materials for a potential in coming Romney administration and realized he had not thought about this at all; also, the administration is institutionalizing its targeted killings approach with its "disposition Matrix" to facilitate inter agency counter terrorism initiatives, a trend that is likely to continue).
The final piece is what happens in the world. If Assad uses chemical weapons, the United States has now committed to act, though Obama has not defined action in this regard. The other immediate question is Iranian negations, nuclear program and whether Israel will strike this coming summer.
As the above develop, we can start to answer the question as we go
apologies for being a bit rushed and lack of hyperlinks -- I trust your google fu is up to the task pending your interest.
Best,
August