"Iowa picks corn, New Hampshire picks presidents," goes the old Granite State-boosting saying. We shall see.

But in the meantime, the presidential wheat is being separated from the chaff, to change the metaphor.

And amid the excitement of the presidential horse races, we might pause over just one of the urgent challenges that the 44th president will confront -- and sadly, in terms of policy, there's plenty of chaff, not much wheat.

Pakistan, for example, is home to at least 75 nuclear weapons. It is also a next-door neighbor to Iran and Afghanistan.

Which is to say, it's an important place, worthy of serious discussion, not just cheap sloganeering. And we have already seen the results of foreign-policy fecklessness: the assassination of Benazir Bhutto on Dec. 27. Her killing was more than a tragedy; it was a blunder.

And it was a blunder that bridged party lines. In the past few months top Republicans and Democrats in the executive and legislative branches had reached a seeming consensus on Pakistan policy: Praise Bhutto and root for her political comeback, while demanding that President Pervez Musharraf allow "free elections."

Yet, nobody in Washington seems to have thought through the basics of this policy. For example, was Bhutto in any way capable of carrying out the pro-American policies she pledged while swanning her way through the salons of Manhattan and Georgetown?

And of course, nobody here thought through how to keep her safe there.

Now Bhutto is dead, Musharraf is still in charge and who knows about the next election? Can there even be an election in a country perpetually on the brink of civil strife, maybe even civil war?

But in the meantime, leading U.S. presidential candidates continue to talk big, as if recent events demonstrate just how easy it is for America to have its way in Pakistan.

First, during the ABC News Democratic debate on Saturday night, Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico said he would ask Musharaff to "step aside," assuring the obviously skeptical moderator, Charles Gibson, that "we have the leverage to do that."

Now we might ask: How would President Richardson pull off that kind of leveraging? The Pakistanis treasure their independence as much as we do; one of the reasons why they built all those A-bombs is that they were tired of being pushed around by foreigners.

Richardson may think that issuing public orders to foreign leaders will get him votes in America, but Americans might think about the whirlwind to be reaped in response to presidential braggadocio on foreign policy.

Second, over on the Republican side, Sen. John McCain of Arizona said on Sunday night's Fox News debate that he would "get" Osama bin Laden: "I know how to get him, and I will get him."

When pressed as to "how" by moderator Chris Wallace, McCain stuck to his guns, repeating his pledge.

A President McCain would certainly need guns, lots of them. Because, not surprisingly, such tough talk is not well received in Pakistan, where bin Laden is believed to be hiding. The headline in Monday morning's Pakistani newspaper Dawn, reacting to earlier reports of Bush administration covert-operations plans for Pakistan, declared bluntly: "Islamabad says U.S. military not welcome."

"Getting" bin Laden, wherever he might be, is a legitimate goal for America -- and has been for six years -- and so it would be nice, for a change, to see some genuine "command focus" on that objective.

But while nobody can doubt McCain's personal courage or dogged determination, we still must ask: Would a President McCain -- or any next president -- fully mobilize America for a possible confrontation with Pakistan, on top of our existing commitments and conflicts?

Specifically, Americans should wonder: Is our military big enough? Are we adequately monitoring the movement of Pakistanis into the United States?

And, oh yes, how are we doing on missile defense?