Washington ? The international to-do list President George W. Bush hands to his successor has a lot of boxes marked “incomplete.” Some of Bush’s foreign policy and security priorities were overtaken by the two expensive wars that outlast him. In other cases Bush ran out of time or political capital, or was vexed by the realities of a new world where even close allies don’t always cater to American whims.

Here are some questions and answers about the overseas agenda President-elect Barack Obama inherits, and how he may change the list left to him.

Q: How are U.S. international objectives different now than they were when Bush took office?

A: The main difference in U.S. strategy and goals at the close of the Bush administration arises from a national war footing that has largely defined the Bush years. Bush took office in 2000 with foreign policy advisers disdainful of Bill Clinton’s internationalist approach and hardly alarmist about the threat of terrorism.

Caught by surprise by the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush ordered the invasion of Afghanistan before his first year in office had ended, and the invasion of Iraq less than two years later, in 2003. The demands on troops, money, planning and decision-making have reordered other goals, and made some much harder to reach.

The recent terror attacks in India offer a recent practical example. Quickly blamed on a terror group based in Pakistan, the attacks have threatened to rekindle a military standoff between nuclear-armed neighbors that have fought three wars in 60 years.

American officials have been worried that Pakistan might divert troops and resources from its fight against insurgents who attack U.S. forces in neighboring Afghanistan, and on Friday those fears appeared valid. Pakistan began moving thousands of troops to the Indian border, apparently diverting them from tribal areas near Afghanistan.

Q: What’s the biggest global problem Bush tried to solve but couldn’t?

A: The spread of radical and often violent Anti-American orthodoxy that led to the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks has only intensified since. Bush’s answer, which Obama partly rejects, is a military and intelligence assault on terrorists coupled with a campaign to spread democratic ideals and intellectual freedom in the Muslim world and beyond. Bush’s efforts may have helped prevent another catastrophic attack, but a definitive measure of his success will take years to accurately assess.

Q: Does that mean terrorism remains the greatest global security threat to the United States?

A: Probably, and especially when combined with the instability and uncertainty of the current global economic crisis. Terrorism and related tactics used by insurgencies have supplanted nuclear war as the threat against which the U.S. designs much of its defense.

Q: What would Obama do differently?

A: Obama is highly critical of what advisers call Bush’s overreach in the battle against terrorism, an approach embodied by the long-term housing of terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. But the Obama administration will probably retain Bush’s core strategies for hunting terrorists and seeking information on possible plots. Obama says he will try to restore America’s moral leadership in the world, a long-term and inexact prescription. For starters, Obama insists he will close Guantanamo.

Q: What are the other priority items?

A: Apart from the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the top security trouble spots are usually identified as Iran, the broader Middle East, Pakistan and North Korea. Increasingly and somewhat surprisingly for both Bush and Obama, Russia has re-entered the top tier of worrisome nations in the wake of its invasion of U.S.-backed Georgia last summer.

Q: Is Iran a bigger threat to the U.S. now, and what would Obama do to lessen the risks?

A: During the Bush administration Iran moved a lot closer to being able to build a nuclear weapon, should it choose to do so. Iran insists its nuclear development program is peaceful but has refused international demands to scale it back. U.S. policy toward Tehran under Bush was inconsistent and sometimes seemed to work at cross purposes. Bush leaves Obama with a framework to talk to Iranian leaders about the nuclear program or other issues, and Obama has said he would pursue tough-minded diplomacy. War with Iran, however, seems unlikely at least so long as U.S. troops remain tied down in neighboring Iraq.

Q: What about North Korea? Wasn’t there a deal to get rid of nuclear weapons there?

A: North Korea fielded a working nuclear device in 2006, an event that reinvigorated international efforts to buy off the isolated and impoverished regime. The North did agree to give up its weapons but has dragged out every step of a laborious negotiation with the United States and other nations. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently told an interviewer that “you’d have to be an idiot to trust the North Koreans,” and Obama isn’t likely to do so either.

Q: Did Bush get anywhere on Mideast peace?

A: Yes, although he didn’t get close to resolving the six-decade conflict between Israel and the Palestinians that feeds other problems in the oil-rich Middle East. Bush’s late-game efforts to sponsor talks between Israel and moderate Palestinian leaders succeeded mostly in keeping relations from backsliding during political upheaval in both camps. He argues that the talks leave a framework for both sides to talk about the most difficult obstacles to peace. Upcoming elections in Israel mean Obama will have to start fresh.