Here’s a little known fact: tennis star Pete Sampras suffers from thalassemia minor, an inherited disease that causes anemia. He hid this fact from the press and his opponents in order to sustain his ‘aura of invincibility’; the psychological advantage over other tennis players was too dear to him. A similar perception of power and competency – the awe generated by our military and economic superiority – has given the United States of America a psychological advantage in its dealings with the world.

In the aftermath of hurricane Katrina and with a growing sense of stalemate in Iraq, there has emerged a vocal contingent of the press that is questioning the very competency (or lack thereof) of this administration and the repercussions these events have had on America’s status in the world. The Economist’s Sept 9th issue ran with a cover proclaiming ‘The shaming of America.’ Blogger Andrew Sullivan claims the American response to the disaster has made the U.S. superpower “look a lot less credible, a lot less fearsome, a lot less capable.” How can these critics be rebutted? That is, if America cannot get its own house in order or maintain even moderate success in its foreign endeavors, what qualifies it as a superpower?

Let’s start with Iraq. Critics charge that occupation is a disaster and that we need a ‘timetable’ for troop removal, their agenda energized by the antics of anti-war mom Cindy Sheehan earlier this summer. But it is collective fatigue, rather than facts on the ground, that has prompted such outrage. Iraq remains the only truly democratic state in the Arab world, the only one to go through the process of drafting a constitution through debate and consensus from its citizens, and the first Arab nation to offer full enfranchisement to women. Indeed, horrible incompetence in policy must’ve produced the current situation.

The current insurgency has gained much momentum through assistance across the border from Iran and Syria. The never ending supply of insurgents will likely soon be stemmed, as the US Ambassador to Iraq issued an ultimatum to Syria recently, indicating that America’s patience was “running out”. Meanwhile, the training of Iraqi troops goes apace. To be fair, the US has fallen short of its original target of Iraqi-trained troops by 2005, but the fabrication of security forces in a hostile region is hardly easy. Yet after every misstep in Iraq, the chorus of naysayers grows ever louder. While the criticism is piled thick as gravy, alternate ideas are hard to come by. If competence is in such short supply within the administration, why aren’t competent leaders on the other side stepping up to the plate? Of course, hindsight is 20/20.

The press furor over Katrina has brought into question the administration’s competency at domestic disaster management. Michael Brown, former head of FEMA and a target for many critics, is not the first person to get his job through cronyism: his appointment remains disappointing, but has since been remedied. Indeed, under him FEMA responded to four hurricanes in Florida last year with ruthless efficiency. The nation has all too soon forgotten the highly effective response to 9/11, which caused Mr. Bush’s government to be universally praised for its swift action.

Jason van Steenwyk, a Florida Army National Guardsman, who has extensive experience with Hurricane relief, notes in a Post-Gazette column by Jack Kelly: "The federal government pretty much met its standard time lines, but the volume of support provided during the 72-96 hour was unprecedented. The federal response here was faster than Hugo, faster than Andrew, faster than Iniki, faster than Francine and Jeanne." FEMA is not a first response agency; the onus of immediate action in a disaster’s aftermath rests on state and local officials.

It was the State authorities who barred the Red Cross from providing relief supplies to the Superdome and Convention Center; buses, less than a mile from the superdome, were left unused by Mayor Nagin. But this shortcoming was not unpredictable: corrective measures to evacuation plans were not made after many of the poorest citizens were not evacuated when Hurricane Ivan was predicted to hit the region last year and buses were not provided. At one point, Gov. Blanco – for what can only be construed as political point-scoring – refused to let the Federal government take control of the National Guard relief effort in the state. Of course, she did not refuse to let the Federal government take most of the blame.

Boldly, the President has held himself accountable for the federal failure, stating on Sept. 12th that “to the extent that the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility." That’s more than Mayor Nagin and Gov. Blanco – both equally, if not more responsible – have admitted.

More than just admitting responsibility, this administration has shown competence in foreign policy. U.S. pressure has allowed for the multi-candidate elections in Egypt (not held for 20 years), a resumption of six-party talks with North Korea, and a serious debate on institutional reform at the scandal-ridden United Nations.

The Bush team has shown even greater competence in handling the economy, with real GDP surging at a close to 4% annual growth rate, much greater than the EU average. Tax cuts have brought in greater tax receipts, attended by unemployment being cut to 5% and surging corporate tax revenues helping plug the budget deficit by hundreds of billions. Mr. Bush pushed CAFTA through Congress despite the vehement opposition of several Republicans, so that trade barriers would be lowered and the United States would be more closely integrated with its neighbors.

When the Indians and Chinese emerge as citizens of economic superpowers – a question of when, rather than if – they will recognize that the Americans aided them at every turn: we opened our markets, gave work to their IT professionals at risk to domestic jobs, and assisted them in resolving regional disputes. The Europeans blocked their textile exports, remained uninvolved in their disputes, and failed to liberalize their domestic economies to aid global development. That is competent policy-building: not giving in to the basest protectionist instincts, no matter how popular they are.

Long-term vision cannot be ignored when making judgments of competency. Giving a government passing grades on competence when it embarks on no great initiatives and is faced no massive disasters is hardly fair. Mr. Clinton did not have to deal with a terrorist attack and the largest natural disaster in American history. Under him, and previous Presidents, we treated the Middle-East – to quote Thomas Friedman – like a giant gas station. Bush is the first President with the vision to engage in the region in a manner as never before: giving liberty to its citizens so that grassroots change can take place.

Thankfully, accomplishments count for more than invective. This is not an incompetent administration, simply a visionary one which has not achieved universal success in its endeavors.