Forget education, tax cuts and Social Security. Don't get me wrong, they're important issues, but regardless of what many Americans feel, the most important problems facing our new president will not be domestic ones. The crucial decisions will mostly involve foreign policy.

Let's face it: The exit of Bill Clinton and the ascension of George W. Bush has signaled significant change. This country is not just entering a new millennium; we are entering a new world order. The post-Cold War prosperity has ended, and it seems that America's destiny will be determined by how we approach this new, curious order.

These next four years will be formative ones that will determine the world we live in for a long time. And unfortunately, George W. Bush and Colin Powell are not the two best people to entrust with these responsibilities.

The most pressing issue for President Bush and Secretary Powell is to determine whether China should be embraced as a partner or shunned like a competitor. This decision will be crucial for the United States. The potential economic productivity and military might of a nation of 1.3 billion people dwarfs that of a nation that at last count has 281.4 million people.

This means that President Bush and Secretary Powell must decide whether they are ready to start another cold war by keeping China at arm's length. Conversely, America can engage China only to help it to its goal of achieving superpower status where it will be in a position to threaten the America.

With this question having no easy answers, it seems that America's days as the world's sole superpower are threatened. How in the world does President Bush plan to handle this?

This is not an issue on which he can not use that banal "I'm a uniter, not a divider" line or spout incoherent slogans about freedom. This matter involves diplomatic handiwork that would be better handled by a career diplomat, not Colin Powell. For most of his career, Powell was charged with discerning enemies and fighting war. I'm just skeptical of his ability or willingness to prevent war.

From an American perspective, he may seem perfect for the job but just having charisma and intelligence does not necessarily translate into results in international affairs.

Second, Bush must be willing to face the harsh realities that a unilateral deployment of the National Missile Defense (NMD) will bring. The arrogance of NMD would immediately upset whatever peace there is in the world. Nations such as Iraq, North Korea, the Sudan, and terrorists like Usama bin Laden could look to alternatives like chemical or biological agents to wipe out large segments of people quickly.

Also, building NMD will be an abrogation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia. Russia is currently short of hard currency and this means that they would be forced to reopen missile factories and sell these nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons to the highest bidder in an effort to jumpstart their economy.

And these weapons would be the kind that you pack into a suitcase or a truck that a missile defense shield would be useless against.

In a nutshell, NMD is too risky because it would breed serious distrust towards the United States. It's an idea that should be scrapped, because it provides shortsighted people with the illusion of security. But then again, it used to be Colin Powell's job to sell risky, inadequately tested, and overpriced military hardware to Congress. Bush and Powell have interests to protect in the defense industry, and that's about all that NMD will be good for.

Another issue that will confront the Bush foreign policy team is the status of post-Cold War hot spots around the world. Greece-Turkey, India-Pakistan, China-Taiwan, Israel-PLA, and the threat of Saddam Hussein will hound America for a long time. Greece-Turkey provides a perfect example of Bush's and Powell's dilemma.

Both countries are in NATO and both have a deep hatred for each other. If open war starts between them as it almost has several times, is President Bush ready to watch the collapse of NATO from within as America stands on the sidelines? During the campaign, President Bush did say that he would not favor intervention unless clear American interests are at stake.

It would appear that George W. Bush was elected on a wave of discontent with the moral fiber of the previous administration. But did America really elect the best man to handle our foreign policy for the next four years? And is Colin Powell the best man to be the handmaiden of American foreign policy? I think not.

Now, it's not because of a lack of respect. The problem I have is that our new secretary of state is the same man that came up with the military doctrine of "invincible force."

This doctrine, used in the Gulf War, states that when fighting a war it is best to use more troops than needed, more weapons than needed and brute force should be used to beat an enemy into submission. From a military perspective, this is fine. After all, the Gulf War was a tremendous American triumph.

In fact, it is probably the best policy for winning a war. But this mode of thinking completely conflicts with his new job description.

This is a job that should not have fallen to a friend or political asset, but rather to a career foreign-service officer who knows what it will take to navigate this myriad of upcoming problems.

Simply, there are serious problems on the horizon such as China's future, the future of weapons of mass destruction, and the need for a clear, consistent foreign policy that spells out when to intervene and when not to. Bill Clinton and his team did not do a stellar job of resolving these problems, but as we face the next four years, I can't help but think that George W. Bush and Colin Powell will do no better.