Just 10 days before the NATO air strikes against Yugoslavia began, Americans ranked President Clinton No 1 among post-war US presidents on foreign policy success. The Washington pundits who usually berate the President for a lack of an over-arching vision in a post-Cold War world were surprised.

The Gallup poll is taken every four years for the respected Chicago Council on Foreign Relations. In the previous one, Mr Clinton was ranked below Presidents Kennedy, Nixon, Truman, Eisenhower, Reagan, Bush and Carter.

Kosovo did not figure at the time of the latest poll among the foreign policy issues which Americans view as "critical". Terrorism, the world economy, the balance of payments and the Middle East were what most concerned those polled. President Clinton would be seen as having a good record on these issues.

He has pushed through tough antiterrorist measures. From the start of his Presidency he has preached the need to face the new challenges of "globalisation" where world economy and security are increasingly interlinked.

But now as the US is the leading force in the NATO air strikes, criticism of the Clinton foreign policy is being increasingly heard from analysts while public opinion is sharply divided over the US role.

As the President emerged last month from the impeachment ordeal, the frustrated Republicans began to see his foreign policy as a new focus for attack. The President was seen as vulnerable for his handling of relations with China. His Administration was accused of mishandling the revelations of Chinese espionage at the Los Alamos nuclear laboratories and of soft-pedalling human rights abuses in China so as not to interfere with trade.

The Republicans also pointed to the Middle East, Russia, Iraq, Bosnia, North Korea and Japan as areas where the Administration was lacking clear goals. But Northern Ireland is seen as an achievement, at least up to this week.

The truth is that the Republicans were offering no clear leadership in foreign policy. But in the post-Lewinsky era, it seemed the most promising area for taking on a popular leader who is presiding over a booming economy. However, now that US air crews are risking their lives over Yugoslavia, the Republicans have rallied to support the President, at least in public.

For the commentators and the analysts from the think-tanks, the Kosovo crisis has prompted a more in-depth look at the President's foreign policy record. Does he have a strategy or does he just improvise whenever the latest crisis breaks?

The experts agree that foreign policy has become more complex for a US president in a post-Cold War world where a theoretical Pax Americana has replaced the superpower rivalry of Washington and Moscow.

SOME now detect the emergence of a "Clinton Doctrine" on the limited use of force through air power which avoids committing US troops on the ground in messy local conflicts as in Somalia in 1992. Now US ground forces will only go in as "peacekeepers" when a political solution has been reached as in Bosnia and as was planned for Kosovo.

In President Clinton's favour it is pointed out that, whereas in Bosnia he hesitated about air strikes for almost three years while Serb massacres took place, in the case of Kosovo the US has brought together the 19 NATO allies to launch air strikes in a remarkably short time. This is also seen as the US realising that even as a superpower it needs the support of regional alliances before launching the cruise missiles or the B-52s.

Next month at the 50th anniversary celebrations of NATO in Washington, the US will present its plans to enlarge the role of the alliance following its enlargement and the end of the Cold War.

The President has also learned how to use air strikes without seeking the approval of Congress or the United Nations.

Congressional approval is required before the US can declare a war, but the President as Commander-in-Chief can unleash the fiercest bombing in Europe since the second World War, albeit as a NATO operation. Congress went along with resolutions of support for an action which is not a "war".

The Clinton foreign policy also means not allowing the United Nations Security Council prevent the use of US air power through Russian or Chinese vetoes. For the recent bombing of Iraq, Washington claimed it was covered by existing UN resolutions ending the Gulf War in 1991.

In Kosovo, the US worked through NATO and claimed the bombing was covered by other UN resolutions.

US foreign policy has also involved blocking UN action when it does not fit in with its aims. Critics recall that it was the US especially which argued against UN intervention to stop massacres in the Great Lakes region of Africa in 1994. Last year President Clinton apologised for this during his visit to Africa.

Now thousands of Kosovars flee to escape being massacred by Serb army and police units, and unknown numbers are being slaughtered. President Clinton's decision against using ground troops and reliance on air strikes with minimum risk to American lives (dubbed "immaculate coercion") is being increasingly questioned.

But to commit US troops to fight a ground war in far-off Kosovo would revive memories of the fatal US involvement in Vietnam. That experience taught US generals never to send troops into a war unless they were certain of winning and, just as important, a clear goal was set to match the commitment.

President Clinton, who opposed the Vietnam War, now sticks to air power and frames his goals accordingly. When he bombed Iraq it was to "degrade" Saddam Hussein's military facilities. No one could say this did not happen.

In Kosovo, the bombing will hopefully force President Milosevic to accept the peace settlement he has rejected. But if not, his military will definitely have been "degraded" and that, too, can be called a success.