This is a new and fearful situation for Americans -- traditionally sheltered behind guardian oceans and unthreatening neighbors, enjoying in recent years unequalled prosperity, military power and world influence, accustomed to a broad range of political freedoms and confident in a relatively settled future.

Now innocent thousands are dead, prominent symbols of power have been ravished, the anthrax scare has exposed another vulnerability, the economy has gone into tailspin, the federal surplus has vanished, political activity is only beginning to revive, and civil libertarians are crying alarm.

Americans can take little comfort, moreover, from two prominent, related post-Sept. 11 developments -- the systematic and seemingly easy triumph of American arms over the Taliban government of Afghanistan; the escape of Osama bin Laden, the master mind behind the Sept. 11 attacks.

The liberation of Afghanistan from a repressive regime appears to have been worth doing in itself, without reference to the overall "war on terrorism." But its consequences are not entirely clear: Even the awesome display of U. S. military power surely came as no great revelation to the rest of the world.

How long and how well can a negotiated compromise government control a tribally divided, traditionally warlike land? Already signs of "security" problems are raising the specter of a Western military occupation of Afghanistan, with all its difficulties, and which in turn could affect the ultimate attitude of the Islamic world.

Where, moreover, will the war on terrorism next be prosecuted? Public and internal Administration support for moving on to the destruction of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq seems to have faded, at least for the moment. No real evidence of Iraqi participation in the Sept.11 attacks has been brought out ; substantial opposition in the Arab world could be expected; and the necessary public support for turning American firepower on Iraq, without specific cause, might be difficult to arouse. If, however, after the conquest of Afghanistan the war on terrorism appears to languish, with no definable enemy and while the national outrage at the Sept. 11 attacks gradually declines, even if the ultimate terrorist threat remains, how long can a war effort and a war psychology ­ not to mention such inconveniences as heightened airline security precautions-- be sustained?

Long ago, in the great public resistance that eventually developed against the "police action" in Korea and the war in Vietnam, it was established that Americans had little liking for fighting small foreign wars that held no ultimate promise of bringing victory in the larger Cold War. This time, no one has even suggested that "terrorism" can be wiped out in one stroke, or a few; indeed, President Bush has warned that the current war probably will take a long time to complete. At some point, therefore, the public might reasonably ask.: war against whom?

As for Osama bin Laden, his apparent escape from Afghanistan (to where?) underlines one of the great remaining questions from Sept. 11 ­ were the devastating attacks of that day essentially a single-shot assault designed for maximum effect? Or were they the first of an equally well-planned series? Even if only the former, their startling success seems likely to encourage Osama bin Laden to try again, somewhere, sometime, sooner rather than later, on an equally devastating scale. His capture would not necessarily have removed the pervasive American fear of a new terrorist strike, since his Al Queda organization and perhaps other leaders could have carried on the terrorist campaign. But Osama bin Laden in the grave or in prison would have removed at least one known threat from a murky scene.

"In the grave," U. S. officials and much of the public seem to prefer. Not only do the wholesale deaths of Sept.11 seem to many Americans to cry out for that kind of justice. But if the terrorist leader were to be captured alive, numerous difficult questions would arise: How would he be tried? Where? Before what kind of tribunal? How would Islam react to a court-ordered rather than a battlefield death? How would Americans react to anything less than a death sentence? But if such a penalty were assured, could the proceeding be labeled or seen by the world as a "fair trial"?

Of more immediate concern is the U. S. economy. Already slowing down when those hijacked aircraft smashed into the World Trade Center, an overvalued economy hamstrung by bloated business inventories and lack of demand inevitably sank further, perhaps literally into recession. Consumer and producer confidence declined, the stock market (its Wall Street location physically damaged by the Sept. 11 attacks) reacted downward, and some industries (particularly the airlines and tourism generally) were badly hit.

Signs of economic speed-up are emerging but Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, has warned that recovery is not "just around the corner" and certainly is not s yet assured.

President Bush, who never had the traditional political "honeymoon" after his disputed election, got it with interest after Sept 11. Rallying round the flag and the President, as Americans always do when challenged internationally, Bush in the last months of 2001 established himself forcefully as the national leader, as he had not quite been able to do earlier in his Administration. For weeks, he governed with virtually no political opposition; and his military leadership, together with that of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, earned broad approval ­ and was vindicated in Afghanistan.

Some of Bush's domestic moves ­ notably his ruling that terrorists captured abroad would face military tribunals without some accustomed legal protections ­ aroused much criticism from lawyers and libertarians but appeared to have strong public support. Not until the Senate, late in 2001, refused a Republican economic "stimulus" ­ regarded by Democrats as top-heavy with tax cuts for the rich ­ did the President suffer a real challenge.

Then, in January 2002, another sign of renewed political opposition appeared when the Senate Majority Leader, Tom Daschle, Democrat of South Dakota, attacked the Bush tax cuts of 2001 ­ which mostly will take effect in later years -- as primarily responsible for the disappearance of the federal surplus. Republicans generally attribute the vanished surplus to the astronomical costs incurred owing to the terrorist attacks, and to the decline of the economy and consequent federal revenues. Daschle's speech foretold a continuing partisan political struggle on the question of economic stimulus and how best to achieve it, as well as a possible effort to repeal some or all of the tax cuts ­ an effort which the Republicans and perhaps the President are sure to label "raising taxes." It signaled the beginning of the end, moreover, of Bush's belated, war-inspired honeymoon (except on specific war measures, where he appears still an actual commander-in-chief). And it sounded perhaps the opening gong of the 2004 presidential campaign, with Daschle himself likely to be among the most active Democratic challengers.

Bush's high personal standing and job performance rating in national polls, as well as the substantial success he can claim as a war President, might appear to make him safe for re-election in three years. Both he and the Democrats know, however, that the same thing was said of his father, the first President Bush, in 1991 after victory in the short and bloodless (on the American side) Gulf War. Both recall, too, that Bush was defeated a year later by Bill Clinton of Arkansas.

(So swiftly and inexorably do modern, television-driven politics move, that barely a decade later both the elder Bush and Clinton are nearly invisible on the national scene -- or screen.)

The present Bush faces politically, moreover, the problem discussed above ­ of sustaining a war with no specific enemy, no settled venue and only the most elusive objective: the destruction of "terrorism," or as Bush likes to put it even less specifically, "evil-doers". Depending on how he handles that question, he might bring an end to the fragile international coalition that now supports the war on terrorism, as well as fracture his support at home.

Like all presidents, notably his father, he's also dependent on an uncertain economy that he can influence but not control. While so far little damaged by the Enron debacle, his established connection to the failed Houston energy giant might yet spiral down into the kind of "scandal" political opponents well know how to exploit. (Think Clinton and Whitewater, whatever that was.) Bush already is suffering criticism that under cover of a war emergency, he is attempting to impose on the country some elements of his pre-Sept. 11 agenda ­ particularly environmental.

A wide-ranging investigation of the obvious intelligence failure of Sept. 11 probably is inevitable. On that point, the Bush Administration seems little more vulnerable ­ perhaps not as much ­ as its predecessors. But such an inquiry holds the potential of laying blame not only for the unpredicted attacks but also for failure to make intelligence reforms that might prevent their repetition.

Conventional politics, in short, sooner or later will return to Washington and the nation; and when it does, Bush the popular wartime leader is sure to be charged by the Democrats with being again the neo-right wing friend of the oil industry and the wealthy that they described for most of 2001.

Meanwhile, all the other challenges of an uncertain new century confront not only Bush but the American people and those of the world. The economy of Argentina collapsed and its government ­ now under a third President in a few weeks ­ defaulted on $141 billion of international debt. This is likely to be damaging to economies in Europe and the U. S., as were recent problems in Indonesia, and may further lower confidence in the policies of the International Monetary Fund ­ which failed to solve the Argentine crisis.

In the Middle East, a settlement ­ even an easing ­ of the bloody struggle between Israel and the Palestinians seems no nearer; nor can the outside world look with much confidence on either Ariel Sharon, Israel's prime minister, or Yassir Arafat, the leader of the Palestinian authority. American pronouncements of marginal gains in the all-but-abandoned "peace process" sound more and more like whistling past the graveyard.

In Southeast Asia, the uneasy India-Pakistan relationship and their long-dormant rivalry over Kashmir has escalated to the verge of open warfare. Pakistan, so far, has been a mainstay of support for the U.S. in the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan; but that relationship surely would be affected, probably adversely, if Pakistan and India were to become engaged in armed hostilities.

Asia might also be most severely affected if the Bush Administration perseveres in its expensive plan to develop and deploy a national missile defense. Among other repercussions, that might well cause China to build up its presently limited missile force, in which case China's traditional rival, India, would have to react. That in turn would cause Pakistan to take alarm and join in a Southeast Asian arms race.

The Bush plan suffered a recent setback in American politics, however, when a new national intelligence estimate in effect downgraded the threat of a missile attack on the U.S. As the Washington Post reported the new estimate ­ compiled by the CIA and 10 other agencies of the intelligence community ­ it predicted that "the United States is more likely to suffer a nuclear, chemical or biological attack from terrorists using ships, trucks or airplanes than one by a foreign country using long-range missiles."

While not ruling out the possibility of a missile attack, the intelligence estimate partially contradicted what has been a primary argument of the Bush Administration on behalf of a missile defense ­ the likelihood that a "rogue state," such as Iraq, North Korea or Iran, might be able fairly soon to launch a nuclear missile capable of reaching the U. S. ­ specifically, in the case of North Korea, hitting Alaska.

So far, the Bush Administration has said nothing to indicate that this report will cause it to retreat from missile defense. Together, however, with the fact that the catastrophic attacks of Sept. 11 were carried out by hijacked aircraft rather than by missiles, the new intelligence estimate may damage public support for expending huge sums on an as-yet-unproven technology, to guard against an unproven threat.. Not all the world's news since Sept. 11 has been bad. In Europe, the new Euro currency has been introduced, not without problems, but with apparent general acceptance. Jesse Helms of North Carolina entered his last year in the U.S. Senate and on the Foreign Relations Committee. The Olympic games will go on in Salt Lake City as scheduled, and an asteroid big enough to turn Texas into a crater missed hitting the earth by a half-million miles.