I would love to see far more student exchange programs. We have curtailed our student exchange problems dramatically. That is a huge mistake. One of the ways we have created a bond with people all over the world is with exchange programs that allow students to come here and for us to go there and better understand each other. We have to build relations with people rather than governments. The Bush administration in particular has failed to do that.

The issue of women's rights in the Middle East has been particularly difficult to navigate politically because it draws in, to name a few, issues of human rights, cultural relativism, and the imposition of values. What should the US role be in regard to advocating women’s rights in the Middle East?

There are some people who believe we should pull our punches on women’s rights in the Middle East. That is wrong. Our position has to be that all people are guaranteed certain inalienable rights. The question then becomes how we accomplish that goal. We cannot make some of the mistakes we made, as well-intentioned as I am sure some of them were, in Iraq. It is ironic that we are using a military and military force to impress upon the Iraqi people how great democracy is. There is an irony there that we fail to appreciate at times. It works no better to force people to accept women or be more supportive of women’s roles in society or government.

I can envision a far more consequential effort to reach out to women, to educate women, to engage them, to allow, for example, young women students to come to this country in far larger numbers to acquaint them with a society where women have far greater opportunity and see women in constructive roles in government and business and education. We have to create an infrastructure whereby women can create role models in other countries when they do not exist in their own. We must be supportive and encouraging without being dictatorial.

Did reluctance on the part of the US Congress to oppose war contribute to US engagement in Afghanistan and in Iraq?

United States engagement in Afghanistan was a justifiable and responsible reaction to 9/11. When there is a perception of threat to the US there is an inclination on the part of most elected officials to give the benefit of the doubt to the administration. In the case of Iraq, policy makers were told by the Bush administration and intelligence sources that there was a serious threat to the United States and that actions needed to be taken to prevent a precarious situation from becoming even worse. We were told that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, for example, and that Al Qaeda was establishing links with the Saddam Hussein regime to create opportunities for another 9/11. Most elected officials would do anything to prevent another 9/11 or to prevent any nuclear event within the United States. Often the feeling among elected officials is that we will support the military, we will support those who call for even greater investment in defense, so that we can do all that is possible to protect the lives of thousands if not millions of Americans.

What end do you foresee not only for the Congressional inclination to trust or support the war on terror but the war itself? When should victory be declared?

We need to continue to stay vigilant, so I do not think we should ever declare victory. We are going to be faced with the reality that terrorism will be part of our lives indefinitely. The more appropriate question is: How do you cope effectively with terrorism in a world that is ever more interconnected and where the risk of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is increasing? How can we more effectively cope with a changed world without violating such important principles as privacy and without overreaching in the sense of creating a system that diverts too much in resources away from other needs to security? You could say there is never enough. We have to find the right balance. We have not found it yet. It is going to be the challenge of current and future lawmakers to better understand the threat, to better understand what works and what does not, and to find the right balance between investing in security and investing in all the other needs we have in our country like infrastructure and education and healthcare and the needs that also dictate the quality of life we have in our country.

What do you think the overall legacy of this administration will be, not only in regard to the Iraq War and foreign policy generally, but in terms of economy, healthcare, and education?

History is going to judge this administration very, very harshly. On virtually every score, the Bush administration has done the wrong thing. I am dumbfounded at the ineffectiveness and the extraordinary mismanagement that I see at the federal level. People have become more cynical and more skeptical because they have seen first hand what happens when people who dislike and distrust government are running government.

What will be the legacy of Hurricane Katrina and US response in terms of international perception of the United States and its domestic capabilities?

Katrina has had as much to do with the negative image of our country as almost any other single event, other than Iraq, that I can think of. Given our position on September 12, 2001, with the outpouring of support and sympathy and affection for the American people and the precipitous, calamitous decline in that perception over a period of four years, it ought to give everybody pause. Beyond just the concern that people internationally have had for our foreign policy, they have seen the underbelly of the United States in the most graphic way and they are shocked, dismayed, and dumbfounded that that underbelly is so broad and so much a part of American society. That is an image that will last for a lot of people around the world for a long time.