http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/opinion/over261.shtml

WASHINGTON -- One of the most appealing aspects of George W. Bush's presidential campaign was his vow that an America under his leadership would -- in its posture toward other nations -- be strong but humble.

The Clinton administration's styling of the United States as the "indispensable nation" was grating, and not a very deft approach to international relations in the era of globalization. As part of his commitment to move American foreign policy into new territory, candidate Bush promised a tone change.

He seems in many ways to have been trying to put his promises into effect, with attempts to lift our approaches to longstanding problems out of their deeply carved ruts. True, his failure to follow the traditions may stem in part from his having little understanding of them. But ignorance about ineffective policies isn't all bad.

Among his changes, Bush has said he will start America down a promising new road toward arms control -- one that doesn't require lockstep agreements with Russia. It would instead call for the United States and its former superpower adversary to reduce weapons in parallel but independent moves.

Also sound is his insistence on a review of America's military posture before he asks for funding increases for the Pentagon. There has been no truly thoroughgoing revision of military thinking since the end of the Cold War significantly changed demands on our military forces. Not that we should go overboard crediting Bush with thriftiness on this question.

The policy announcements stressed that he'd use the outgoing administration's 2002 Defense Department budget request pending the review, thus eschewing expected increases. But the $310 billion figure Bush is using represents a $19 billion increase from fiscal 2001, what with congressional add-ons and such.

Even in defense's world of megabillions, $19 billion is worth something. And the Pentagon is notorious for bad money management. As Iowa's Sen. Charles Grassley has said: "Ramping up the Pentagon budget when the books are a mess is highly questionable at best. To some it might seem crazy."

Or, even more pungently, Retired Air Force chief Gen. Merrill McPeak: "If we can't defend this country for $300 billion a year we ought to get some new generals." Bush's top-to-bottom review clearly needs to include accounting procedures as well as military ones. Still, it's overdue and welcome. In a move particularly in keeping with his pledge of humility, Bush -- in a recent speech in Norfolk, Va. -- stressed America's relations with her NATO allies, adding, "Nothing must ever divide us."

Then the humility and hope for unity ran smack up against another Bush promise -- to pursue a national missile defense. NMD's potential for dividing us from friendly nations, and for stimulating anxious ones into undesirable activity, is practically boundless.

Missile defense, French President Jacques Chirac has warned, could "re-launch the arms race in the world." Germany's defense minister said correctly, "The technical feasibility and the financing of a strategic missile defense are not at all manageable yet."

Even good friend Britain has announced it has no plans to "buy into" our missile shield plans. Greenland's prime minister summed up Europe's reaction: "NATO has not greeted the NMD plans with cheers."

Nor has Canada, whose prime minister calls the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty -- which Bush vows to abandon if he can't have NMD without it -- "a cornerstone of strategic stability."

As for edgier nations, China has expressed "serious concern." Russia too has objected, strenuously, and has cultivated our allies' objections. Indeed, Russia recently proposed to NATO a cut-rate European missile defense of its own.

And how have we responded? Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Russia's objections are "not really serious" and that, as the London Telegraph put it, "he was sure Europe would fall into line on the issue. "There is no question in my mind but that we will be able to evolve a system that will be able to deal with ballistic missiles," said Rumsfeld.

Well, there are questions in many minds, including a lot of American ones -- about the cost, feasibility and wisdom of the NMD pursuit. And there are serious objections, which don't look likely to disappear with the wave of Secretary Rumsfeld's hand.

Of course, Rumsfeld, having served with Bush's father, has been schooled in the old traditions. Perhaps it's time for Bush the younger to remind him of the new ones. Even this administration's hopes of getting to some kind of agreement about missile defense -- not to mention our standing in the world, and ability to act in concert with others on a broader range of issues -- can only be damaged by such arrogant dismissiveness.

Geneva Overholser is a columnist with the Washington Post Writers Group.