Not too surprisingly, I got a zero percent agreement.

Now, here are my answers and why:



1. Has President George W. Bush risen to the challenges posed by the attacks of last Sept. 11?

Your answer: A. Absolutely. Bush has led a successful prosecution of the war on terrorism and has been an inspiration to Americans at home and abroad.

My answer: C. Bush was shaken badly in the early hours of the crisis, and Americans took their cues from that. When he regained his composure -- with his speech to rescue workers at Ground Zero on Sept. 14 -- Bush rallied the nation to the job ahead. The Afghan war began well, but U.S. military conservatism about deploying our troops allowed much of al-Qaida to escape into friendly areas of Pakistan once the Taliban lines broke. Further, after an initial period of introspection, Bush and his aides abandoned any real examination of America’s place in the world and why a man like Osama bin Laden could command such loyalty and organize such an attack. Efforts to reform intelligence agencies have been quashed and the deeper question of neutralizing anti-American sentiment in the Middle East has received little attention. Indeed, the conduct of the war may be worsening it.



Given more thought, I would have probably qualified my answer by criticizing Bush's moral inconsistency in his attitudes toward Al Quaeda versus his attitudes toward Arafat and Middle Eastern terrorists. Unfortunately, this answer was not available.

Moran's answer is right down the liberal centerline, including the myth that Bush was unhinged during the beginnings of the crisis. I have seen no objective evidence for this, but it makes a good story. The Secret Service's primary job is protecting the President, including hustling him to safety. A President standing up in front of an assassin and bravely daring him to take his best shot might look good in Hollywood, but is not the point of the whole exercise in real life. U.S. military "conservatism" was concerned with avoiding unnecessary military casualties, and allowing the Afghan allies to carry their own weight, but in retrospect I would agree that had the U.S. done the job right from the beginning, many terrorists would not have escaped.

As for the rest of the "why do they all hate us so?" routine, we've gone over that crap before.

2. What has been the Bush administration's greatest success overseas?



Your answer: E. None of the above.



I would have put down the utter destruction of a hostile government in Afghanistan with very few casualties on either our side or the side of the Afghan civilians. Not surprisingly, this was not one of the choices.

My answer: A. Bush is falling prey to many of the weaknesses his father exhibited in the early 1990s: allowing battlefield success to be frittered away after the fighting dies down; believing too much of what the Pentagon and intelligence agencies tell him; waiting too long to move against corporate abuses and thus being associated with them in the minds of some voters. While G.W. Bush isn't nearly the internationalist his father was, he has done an excellent job of making practical, short-term alliances when needed. In many of these cases, there are long term risks involved: in Pakistan, the decision to get so involved in a nuclear-armed state that is inherently unstable has alienated a far more important potential partner, India. In Uzbekistan, the United States finds itself backing a regime as restrictive in many ways as the Taliban itself. And a flirtation with Iran during the early months of the war collapsed utterly into the worst bilateral relations since the Reagan years. Still, wartime sometimes calls for compromises. It's easy to criticize them if you are not the one responsible for figuring out where to base American troops. (I still say our bases in Saudi Arabia, however, cause a great deal more trouble than they are worth).

Don't know what corporate abuses have to do with any of this, but I suppose he felt he had to wave them in front of the readers in case they forgot the latest attempt to knock Bush off his feet. We have to deal with Pakistan because that is probably where most of the terrorists are currently hanging out, and there is little other choice. I suppose we could make a deal with India to attack the terrorists in Pakistan, but I think that might cause a little more trouble than it is worth. The administration has already realized that bases in Saudi Arabia are not worth much, which is why we are moving them.

3. Who has been America's greatest ally since Sept. 11?

Your answer: B. Britain



My answer: D. For all of his eloquence just after the attacks, Prime Minister Tony Blair leads a European nation extremely disturbed by the unwillingness of the United States to consult anyone before it moves in the world. (Anyone who has not read Tony Blair's statements in the House of Commons on Sept. 12 should do so now.) He is personally committed to the war on terrorism, and has committed his government and military to the fight. But his people are deeply ambivalent.

Russia, on the other hand, has been an enormous success for the Bush administration throughout the crisis. From the earliest moments, there has been a notable lack of official statements suggesting American deserved what it got -- the kind of statements that might have been expected, for domestic political consumption, for the erratic Boris Yeltsin. Instead, Russia's President Vladimir Putin saw an opportunity for horse trading: vital Russian consent to U.S. bases in former Soviet Central Asian republics, continued Russian support for the Northern Alliance; Russian help in reigning in warlords and Iran at post-Taliban talks, and a useful (if somewhat flawed) nuclear arms control accord to boot. At the risk of taking Britain for granted, the Russians have pulled their weight and more. NATO, by comparison, is underutilized, but the blame rests half with Washington. Pakistan is an ally by diktat, and its inability or unwillingness to control what goes on within its own borders (and its maddening commitment to violence in Kashmir) just about erase the value of its friendship. Then there is Israel. A friend in need, no doubt, but one which has gone out of its way at the most inconvenient moments to ensure there will be no repeat of the Gulf War, when Israel acted like a real ally, holding the lid on its dispute with the Palestinians and agreeing not to strike back for the Scud missile attacks for the sake of larger, more strategic (Gulf War) goals. Israel's current behavior may grow out of mistrust of the first Bush administration, which failed to deal with Saddam when it had the chance. But the current Israeli government, by stoking conflict with the Arabs just as America is trying to convince them to rally against terrorism, is more liability than friend at the moment.



Okay, my answer was a bit emotional, and I would have to agree that Russia has helped us out enormously. Their willingness to bolter our oil supply, which Moran overlooks, is very important all by itself by defusing an Arab pressure point. I don't know what to say about his comment that Israel is "stoking" conflict with the Arabs. I suppose constant attempts to exterminate them should not be considered hostile moves.

4. Who has had the greatest influence on current U.S. foreign policy?



Your answer: A. George W. Bush

My answer: B. This isn't rocket science, but it isn't necessarily what the White House press corps would say, either. In cases like this, it's easier to eliminate than prove the positive, so let's start with Cheney. Often sequestered and possibly ailing, Cheney's main focus, aides tell me, is military and homeland defense. He gets along well with Rumsfeld and Ashcroft, and while he is consulted by the president on foreign affairs question, he is not the first person asked. Powell, clearly, is the odd man out, a man who is naturally cautious and solicitous of world opinion, even without having the burden of being America's chief diplomat. Likewise, Scowcroft, a trusted National Security Advisor during the first Bush administration, and George Herbert Walker Bush himself, often are consulted by the president, but do not get involved in real policymaking. That leaves two enormous personalities: Rumsfeld, whose Pentagon briefings often veer into foreign policy making by themselves, and Rice, who often takes on the job no one wants: explaining controversial decisions to the media. There is no real way to know the answer to the question, but my judgment is that both have been given enormous latitude to speak their mind and to represent that as American policy. And of the two, only one is seated at the right hand of the son, George. That's Condoleezza Rice.



This was a tough call for me, since all of the above have had influence at one time or another, but Bush is the guy in charge when the buck stops. Moran, of course, has to adhere to the liberal mythology that Bush is an idiot who must be "steered" constantly, so he cannot conceive that Bush actually calls any shots, but his argument on behalf of Rice is a good one.

5. What has been the greatest setback to the war on terrorism?



Your answer: A. The flare-up in the Israeli-Palestinian crisis

My answer: D. Close readers of Brave New World will have expected A here, but the Israeli-Palestinian conflict did not have to be the disaster for American foreign policy that the Bush administration has made it. Had the United States continued to pursue a policy of prodding both sides equally toward a settlement, American influence in the region would not have sunk so low. But in the long run, Israelis and Palestinians may insist on killing one another no matter what America does. So the United States has to bear its own longer-term interests in mind, and with regard to those interests, policy toward Iraq right now is far more damaging. In effect, we've squandered much of the world's sympathy for what happened on Sept. 11. On the one hand, the Bush administration has made the removal of Saddam Hussein official American policy. Fine and good, I say, as long as you do it. Since that declaration -- in the early months of 2001 -- a lot of hot air has leaked out of Washington about big plans, but nothing has happened. In the meantime, Saddam has successfully managed to scare many of the Arab world's weak leaders into believing that their populations simply wouldn't put up with overt support for a new American war against him. That is not true, I think, but when you are a ruthless, unpopular Arab leader -- like the Saudis or Syrians, for instance -- the specter of ending up on a meat hook like Mussolini is never far from your mind. My dad, a boxer, once told me "Never make a threat you can't back up." He also said, "Never telegraph your punch." It was good advice. G.W.'s dad, of course, didn't box.



Again, my response was based on the rupturing of the Bush Doctrine over the political necessity of having to pretend that Arafat is a civilized human being. He lost a lot of moral ground. A major part of getting nations to crack down on terrorists inside their borders was the fear that the U.S. would treat governments allied with or sheltering terrorists just like the Taliban government of Afghanistan. When we began waffling on this idea during the Middle East crisis, holding Israel to standards we did not adhere to ourselves, we started having problems.

As for Iraq, I have no idea why attack plans are being flipped around like they are, unless Saddam losing sleep has some strategic purpose.

6. Will the United States win the war on terrorism?



Your answer: A Yes. It won't happen quickly, but ultimately American military might and the righteousness of the cause will prevail.

My answer: D. Sorry to say this, particularly as the father of two wonderful children, but there is no victory over terrorism. By definition, terrorism is a form of warfare that seeks to exploit the very strengths of a society like America's (or any democracy). Openness, immigration, tolerance of other religions - not to mention the American economy's desperate appetite for cheap labor -- all of these things make it impossible to cordon the country off from the world. Another factor: deterrence of the kind that kept the Soviet Union from launching its missiles for 50 years will have absolutely no affect on terrorists. Civilians killed in retaliatory attacks merely add to the pile of martyrs that rejuvenate recruitment rolls (see: Israel). What the United States can do, however, is the harness the power of the vast majority of nations around the planet who fear terrorism - from Muslim nations like Egypt, Morocco and Indonesia, to Russia, China and NATO. One nation working against the interests of terrorists simply singles itself out as the best target for their mayhem. A worldwide dragnet that never ends - depressingly brutal and Orwellian as it may sound - is the best way to keep terrorism in check. Like communism, the decision to embrace terrorism is driven by personal conviction and destitution. It cannot be bombed out of existence - though bombs can be useful in destroying its marshalling areas. The deeper solution involves feeding and education the world, and using American power - economic and military - to demand from our allies in the Middle East tolerance and progress toward democracy. Failing that, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian Authority, Pakistan, Algeria and other "quasi-democratic" regimes will continue to turn out terrorists like Ford turns out cars.



I have a lot more faith in "military might" than with impressing the world with the "righteousness of our cause," but I'm cynical.

I disagree with Moran's assessment. A "victory over terrorism" in this case is the elimination of one or more large scale organizations with vast resources that engage in terrorism, and this is feasible using military power among other tools. Obviously, we can never eliminate the Timothy McVeigh-type Lone Nut without drastic reductions in civil liberties that would probably be worse than the random minor attacks such nuts generate, but this is not the real issue.

He uses the example of communism. You certainly can't "bomb" the philosophy out of existence, but military strength is the big difference in whether you have to confront communists in coffee houses and universities, or communist nations with nuclear arsenals.

It is worth noting that Quaddafi was once a major supporter of terrorism until a few American bombs creased his hair. We heard little from that quarter for years afterwards.