While some observers speculate that Bush could present his own bold proposals to Gorbachev, the president's handling of the missile situation in Europe may hint at things to come.

Last week, Bush sent Secretary of Defense-designate John G. Tower to Europe to urge the NATO allies to permit the U.S. to upgrade missiles stationed there. The allies, especially West Germany, are resisting the change. They say the upgrade is unnecessary in the light of Gorbachev's decision to unilaterally withdraw 500,000 troops from Eastern Europe and cut the U.S.S.R.'s defense budget by 14 percent.

"It's the same song, second chorus, a little bit louder and a little bit worse," says Retired Rear Admiral Eugene Carroll of the missile program. The deputy director of the Committee on Defense Information in Washington says Bush is violating pledges he made since his election to reassess Soviet relations, adding that the president is wedded to the outdated "peace through strength" philosophy.

But experts say Bush must balance the desire to encourage allies to take up the burden of their own defense with the need to hold together the Western alliance against a purportedly diminishing threat, experts say.

The Soviet Union's impending withdrawal from Afghanistan, set for February 15, will afford Bush another opportunity to demonstrate his foreign policy objectives. When the Red Army tanks roll out of the Afghan capital after a nearly 10-year-long occupation, rebel factions are expected to overthrow the government and fight among themselves for leadership of the country.

In a press conference last week, Bush said the United States should play a "catalytic role" in bringing about democratic rule in Afghanistan. But advisers stressed later that the U.S. would continue a calculated policy of strict non-intervention in Afghanistan.

In fact, moderation and practicality may be the hallmarks of Bush's foreign policy team, according to experts.

Secretary of State James A. Baker III, deputy Lawrence S. Eagleburger and National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft are Washington insiders who place pragmatism before ideology.

"I have a feeling that Baker is just too much of a politician to kind of put his neck out the way that [former Secretary of State George] Schultz did and fight on principle in this way," Goldman says.

Baker, chief of staff and later secretary of the treasury under Reagan, has little foreign policy experience and will probably rely on career bureacrats for guidance, Khong says. He adds that these experts at the "second tier" of the state department are moderate.

Administration critics charge that another Bush appointee, Tower, will resist military cutbacks essential for an arms control agreement. Some have charged that Tower, who served as a consultant to defense contractors after retiring as chair of the Senate's armed services committee, has ties to the weapons industry that might impair his judgment.

The Defense Department "requires a very strong disciplinarian, a strong manager, and if there's anything that's true it's that John Tower is not a disciplined man or a manager," Carroll says.

If American foreign policy continues to embrace a hostile relationship with the Soviets, "it will distract us from what is our real problem right now--not the Soviet Union, but technology and the American economy," Goldman says.

Instead of a cold war, securing markets and halting an economic slide relative to Japan and rising economies like South Korea and Taiwan could become the focus of American foreign policy, experts say.

Khong says the U.S. should be aware of Japan, and Ulam says, "I think to some extent the Reagan administration kept pushing problems under the rug, and those problems--Japan, Western Europe--they all come."