Peter W. Galbraith, the author of “The End of Iraq and Unintended Consequences: How War in Iraq Strengthened America’s Enemies,” formerly served as a U.S. ambassador to Croatia. He discussed global challenges for the United States with foreign-affairs columnist John C. Bersia.

Q. What is your critique of American foreign policy?

A. The problem with the Bush administration’s foreign policy was not necessarily that it was wrong, but that it was astonishingly ineffective. That ineffectiveness came from substituting ideology, faith and wishful thinking for hard-hitting analyses and pragmatism. So, at this point, President Barack Obama has the luxury of being pragmatic and not having to respond to the ideological impulses that are often so important in U.S. foreign policy. It seems to me that he is doing a very good job of taking advantage of the opportunity.

Q. How so?

A. You could begin with the opening toward Iran; of course, Obama campaigned on that. I would also include his comments on Cuba and the clear effort to open relations with the island. This is a classic example of substituting practicality for ideology. We can all dislike Cuban leader Fidel Castro and the dictatorship there, but surely nobody can argue that the policy of isolation and embargo — which has lasted for 50 years — has worked. It has been ineffective. Arguably, one result is that Cuba is one of the last remaining Communist countries in the world. In addition, Obama has recognized that Iraq is a diversion of U.S. resources from other real challenges to American national security. Finally, he has come up with new approaches to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Q. What are the biggest challenges facing us?

A. Bush had the right idea in 2002, when he articulated the position that the most serious threats to the United States come from rogue regimes with the most dangerous weapons. He then followed that up by focusing on a regime in Iraq that was awful and repressive to its own people but not a threat to us. Even if Iraq had chemical weapons, it did not have the most dangerous weapon of all — a nuclear bomb. Obama is now focused on two countries. One, Pakistan, has nuclear weapons and is very unstable. The other, Iran, is either aspiring to acquire such weapons or to master the technology that would enable it to obtain them in the future. So, it’s a reorientation of U.S. concern to the main threats to the United States. It’s the right and pragmatic thing to do.

Q. Realistically, what can the president do during the short term in the foreign-policy realm?

A. He has changed a lot in foreign policy in a matter of a few months. In addition to coming up with a new strategy on Afghanistan and withdrawing troops from Iraq, he has modified the U.S. position on global climate change, an issue that represents a serious threat to our nation and humankind’s survival over the next century. There’s a whole different language on human rights and international law, which he believes we should respect. He is a strong proponent of the United Nations, the only real way to focus international efforts. The Bush administration adopted an approach that can be summed up as: “It’s my way or the highway.” It turns out the rest of the world said, “OK, you’re on the highway.” So, we ended up doing things alone, being unsuccessful and not having support. Obama recognizes that we have to work with the rest of the world. He made an extraordinarily powerful statement recently in Prague, indicating that he wants to see a world without nuclear weapons. There’s a new arms-control agreement with the Russians. I don’t know how you could achieve much more in foreign policy in such a short period of time.

Q. Regarding Afghanistan and Pakistan, specifically, what is realistic in the near future?

A. Well, nothing is realistic in the short term, just as nothing is realistic during the same period for the economy. Obama has commented that it has taken us a long time to get into these messes, and it will take us a long time to get out. But there is a new strategy in Afghanistan for which the world has expressed support. On Pakistan, Obama is lending a hand to a very fragile civilian government and increasing U.S. aid. It’s worth recalling that an insurgency is within 100 miles of that country’s capital. At the same time, he is holding the Pakistanis accountable for what is happening in their country. He’s essentially saying, “Here’s the aid, but we also expect to see measurable progress.” We demanded almost nothing of the previous ruler, Pervez Musharraf, and he did almost nothing.

Q. Indicate some other trouble spots that deserve U.S. attention.

A. North Korea is clearly one. Under the previous administration’s watch, it had been a party to the non-proliferation treaty. It may have been cheating on its obligations, but it was cheating slowly. The Bush administration broke off the Clinton-era deal that had frozen North Korea’s program. It might have felt good from a moral perspective, but the Bush team had no strategy for a follow-up except threats that North Korea didn’t take seriously. Now, we have North Korea with at least six nuclear weapons. Also, there is the continuing and unresolved threat from al-Qaida, whose top leaders remain at large nearly eight years after 9-11. Then there is the environmental challenge, which has to be front and center, because it will affect the lives of our children and grandchildren.

— John C. Bersia, who won a Pulitzer Prize in editorial writing for the Orlando Sentinel in 2000, is the special assistant to the president for global perspectives at the University of Central Florida. Peter W. Galbraith’s e-mail address is galbraithvt@gmail.com