FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Most Americans will join Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole in applauding President Bill Clinton's action in launching a few dozen cruise missiles against Iraqi targets this past week. Many also will judge this action insufficient in dealing with the brutal Saddam Hussein. Even as they cheer, though, those same Americans will be excused for entertaining many doubts about this president's stewardship of American foreign policy.

First, there are the nagging doubts about the election-year timing of this most poll-driven of presidents. It is possible to agree unreservedly with one of Ross Perot's pungent one-liners. Speaking to the national convention of the American Legion, Perot refused to join in the uncritical praise of the president's action. Instead, said Perot, "War is not a place for a politician to create a positive image and get a bump in the polls." Pointedly, Perot said a president thinking of commiting troops he should ask, "Would I go into combat to fight and die for this cause?"

The issues at stake here go far beyond Perot's formulation, however telling it may be. They reach to the heart of how this president has conducted foreign policy and defense matters. Begin with this: The non-nuclear cruise missiles launched against Iraq belong in a budget category zeroed out by Clinton administration budgeteers eager, as always, to take any supposed "savings" out of the muscle and bone of our nation's defense. Only strenuous protests from the armed forces convinced congressional Republicans to replace funding for these super-efficient weapons.

Even more important, though, is the haunting question asked this week by many thoughtful observers: Where are our allies? A short 5 1/2 years ago, an American president risked all to build one of the great, worldwide coalitions in all history. Its purpose: To confront Saddam, punish him for his brutal aggression, destroy his warmaking capability and kick him out of Kuwait. The debate over whether President Bush finished the job he began so splendidly will continue endlessly, but this much is clear: Today, much of the gains of that hard-won victory have vanished like drops of water on the parched desert sands.

In this sad turn of affairs, this president must also take a large portion of the blame. Except for the British, all our allies took a walk. Where is the strong American leadership that built the great Desert Storm coalition? Reading polls, that's where. And the overnight polls will always register support for a commander-in-chief who, confronting the brutal realities of world politics, takes bold action abroad.

President Clinton has reaped these short-term gains. Except for this single action, his foreign policy has been one of short-term expediency married to tough words and posturing and little else. Haiti is an unholy mess. A true crisis with North Korea has been papered over entirely, as Bill Clinton allowed that insane regime to keep its nuclear weapons. Bosnia is worse, with sham elections that are probably going to have to be postponed, while the American troops this president sent there will see their mission accomplished -- when, exactly?

Whoever occupies the Oval Office next Jan. 20 will confront a dangerous world getting more so, in no small part because of Bill Clinton's weak leadership.