In a post today, Amitai Etzioni notes the dangerous credibility vacuum behind John McCain's tough rhetoric on Georgia - and the recklessness of expanding a security guarantee to countries which we cannot realistically defend.

McCain's words raise the question of how he would respond to a Russian grab for Georgia or Ukraine. Would he accept the humiliation of having our impotence exposed? Or would he shoot from the nuclear hip? Sarah Palin, apparently unread on the origins or consequences of World War One, said recently that Article Five would require that we defend our allies even if that meant war with Russia.

Governor Palin, of course, knows less than nothing about foreign policy. But McCain's Senior Foreign Policy Advisor, Randy Scheunemann actually knows a great deal. He may not be able to see Russia from his home state, but he knows the region well, having been a longtime advocate of NATO expansion, and a consultant to Georgia and several East European governments. He also was an early promoter of Ahmed Chalabi, and the head of both the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, and the neoconservative Project for the New American Century. I spent a week with him in Israel last year, where I became familiar with his thinking on how to deal with what he called the "thugs" running Russia. I very strongly suspect that if you liked the Iraq war, you are going to love a McCain administration.

Which brings me to an issue which Amitai discusses thoughtfully in Security First - the importance of morality not just to "liberal" soft power, but also to "realist" hard power. I believe that the only alternative to Scheunemann-style bellicosity would be a greatly enhanced American capacity to cooperate with and lead other nations. This will require, among other things, that the next President restore our moral authority as a nation that lives up to its democratic values.

Governor Bill Richardson said it well during his presidential campaign. Speaking of American power, he stressed that it is:

"built upon foundations more solid than narrow self-absorption. We defend ourselves most effectively when we lead others. And it has been our willingness to seek and find common ground, to blend our interests with those of others, which has been the key to our long history of effective leadership. Realists like Truman and Eisenhower understood that defending Europe and ourselves from the Soviets required a strong military. But they also understood that we could not lead our allies if they did not wish to follow.

"These and subsequent American Presidents knew the importance of moral leadership. Our remarkable military and our prosperous economy gave us the power to lead. But our commitment to human dignity - including our willingness to struggle against our own prejudices -- inspired others to follow. If America is to lead again, we need to remember this history, and to rebuild our overextended military, revive our alliances, and restore our reputation as a nation that respects international law, human rights and civil liberties. ("A New Realism: A Realistic and Principled Foreign Policy" Foreign Affairs, January/February, 2008; http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080101faessay87111/bill-richardson/a-new-realism.html)

If the next President is to turn the page on one of the most self-destructive and violent chapters in American history, he will need to heed Richardson and Etzioni, not Scheunemann. Restoring America's international efficacy will require more than just rebuilding our broken military and our weakened economy. It will require restoring our moral credibility.