Presidential qualifications, take two

New York City artists, Fall 2001

Back in January, I posted the question that is most important in determining my attitude toward the entrants in the 2008 Presidential horse race: If (when) the U.S. is hit by another terrorist attack, which candidate will be most able to keep retaliation/revenge within somewhat proportional limits?

This morning I was thrilled to see that a trio of Democratic senior "wise men" had raised the issue of intelligent response to a terrorist nuclear attack on the U.S. in a New York Times oped. "William J. Perry, a professor at Stanford, and Ashton B. Carter, a professor at Harvard, were, respectively, the secretary and an assistant secretary of defense in the Clinton administration. Michael M. May, also a professor at Stanford, is a former director of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory." It was nice to see they don't think the smart response would be to start shooting from the hip.

After cataloguing some communications and relief measures a government that could get anything done would perform, they suggest:

The United States government, probably convened somewhere outside Washington by the day after, would be urgently trying to trace the source of the bombs. No doubt, the trail would lead back to some government -- Russia, Pakistan, North Korea or other countries with nuclear arsenals or advanced nuclear power programs -- because even the most sophisticated terrorist groups cannot make plutonium or enrich their own uranium; they would need to get their weapons or fissile materials from a government.

The temptation would be to retaliate against that government. But that state might not even be aware that its bombs were stolen or sold, let alone have deliberately provided them to terrorists. Retaliating against Russia or Pakistan would therefore be counterproductive. Their cooperation would be needed to find out who got the bombs and how many there were, and to put an end to the campaign of nuclear terrorism. It is important to continue to develop the ability to trace any bomb by analyzing its residues. Any government that did not cooperate in the search should, of course, face possible retaliation.

... Contingency plans for the day after a nuclear blast should demonstrate to Americans that all three branches of government can work in unison and under the Constitution to respond to the crisis and prevent further destruction.

Sage advice -- would any of the Presidential hopefuls dare heed it?

The Republicans are currently competing at thumping their chests, so they aren't even worth considering.

Among the Democrats, after six months of looking them over, my top bet for exercising restraint would be Richardson. As far as foreign affairs go, he seems to live in the real world (though of course aiming to perpetuate U.S. dominance.) On domestic matters he is not attractive, but I think he knows he doesn't want to blow the planet to kingdom come.

If Gore were a candidate, I think he might pass my test -- he's accustomed to think beyond costs, benefits, and immediate gratification.

As for Obama, he emanates caution to the point of timidity -- a reason I don't much like him in most respects, but a character trait that might prevent massive human misery in this situation.

Edwards still seems hung up on making up for lack of experience by proving he's committed to a strong military. There are some good ideas in the speech linked there. But they don't speak to my concerns.

And Clinton doesn't seem trustworthy in this regard -- she's awfully smart and tough -- but doesn't come across as wise or thoughtful. She might grow in the job. Others have.

What do readers think? Who among the field seems most able not to go to war when under intense pressure to start throwing bombs? ***See also Terrance's thoughts about why this is a country so prone to warlike impulses in "The Myth of a Bush Recovery," part 1, part 2, and very especially, part 3. These essays also appeared at Booman Tribune.