President Bush's last scheduled NATO summit, in Bucharest, Romania, this week, was a mixed success from his point of view. Whether it was a success from America's point of view depends on whether his objectives correspond to the nation's best interests, a questionable proposition given his low approval rating.

Mr. Bush obtained from the 25 NATO allies a general statement of support for his expensive, questionable, some would say unnecessary, missile defense program. He achieved this in spite of Western European concerns over Russia's adamant opposition to it.

Albania and Croatia, two of the five countries Mr. Bush was pushing for membership, were accepted. Macedonia was not, due to Greek objections to its name, which Greece considers to be a slight on its own sovereignty. The question of interoperability -- compatibility of systems -- makes Albania a dubious new partner unless the United States would like to train and equip its forces from the bottom up. The admission of two other countries Mr. Bush wanted to see in -- Ukraine and Georgia -- will have to wait until later, given significant Western European opposition at the summit.

Mr. Bush also went to Bucharest looking for more NATO troops to supplement the U.S. military presence against a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan. He wanted the troops so that the United States can maintain its high, "surged" troop presence in Iraq. He got commitments from the Romanians, Poles and French to provide additional forces, but less than Mr. Bush wanted.

All in all, if it is in America's interests to see NATO's borders extended and Mr. Bush's missile defense program survive, and the United States able to continue to cover troop needs in both the long Iraq war and the struggle in Afghanistan, then the NATO summit was a partial success.

But Americans who don't support these policies won't think so.