The Virtues of Engagement.(U.S. military policy)

War is too important to be left to generals, so usually it isn't. And U.S. presidential elections are certainly far too important to be left to Americans--yet they still are. For most of 2004 the rest of the world will stand by while debate rages about the arcane trivia of life in the States (such as taxes and Medicare), hoping that what the globe ends up with--whether a Bush or a Dean--is someone who knows what the hell they're doing. Because, if he ain't...

That said, one thing the world knows by now is that presidents learn on the job. George W. Bush in office wasn't what the British political establishment expected, though the British intelligentsia (quite a different thing) has acted as though he were. Bush Mark I decried nation-building and peacemaking in favor of missile shields and a safe interpretation of national interests. The Republicans' headier interventionists were kept under kind--but strict--supervision in a safe ward near the back of the hospital. Then along came September 11.

The world had seen this before. By the time Bill Clinton left office he had metamorphosed into a Mark IV foreign-policy model, making peace and building nations as though he were de facto secretary-general of the United Nations. Which, of course, is what the president of the United States often is.

Even so, it was possible that, in the post-9/11 period, the Republicans would become isolationists. No--they would become super-isolationists, venturing from the angry citadel only to drop bombs or impose unilateral sanctions, and then returning, leaving the roiling, boiling world behind. Such was the nightmare of many; a sort of post-Somalia America, cubed. The reality was utterly different.

Now the world has to deal with the possibility that--come January 2005- -there could be someone else in the White House, and that this someone else might be Howard Dean. If it is, would we be in for post-Somalia again, or would Dean recognize that--like it or not--the United States carries a unique international responsibility and burden, and one it will always be criticized for shouldering?

The Bush camp and the rival Democrats claim that Dean is actually that most dangerous of candidates--a small-town weed. He didn't support the war and he isn't really up for the fight against ter- ror, so allies, too, should beware a Dean administration.

But if you look at what Dean actually says, then--for the most part-- the horses remain distinctly unfrightened. Take Dean's opposition to the war in Iraq out of the equation and there is very ...