The latest news still has Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel delaying his decision on the possibility of a presidential bid.

While it’s true that Hagel isn’t strictly anti-war or non-interventionist (and, indeed, has been a big supporter of the Bush administration on most issues), his relatively critical voice would be welcome in the primary debates, especially when the top three GOP contenders dissent little, if at all, on the Administration’s foreign policy (John McCain partly excepted, who is, if anything, further to the right than Bush). And unlike, say, Ron Paul, the quixotic libertarian congressman from Texas, a Hagel candidacy couldn’t be easily dismissed.

Moreover, the Democratic field hasn’t exactly distinguished itself with antiwar zeal, with Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama all making threatening sounds about Iran and equivocating on Iraq (NM governor Bill Richardson and, of course, Dennis Kucinich are exceptions to this trend, and, perhaps not coincidentally, polling in the single digits).

The fact is, it still seems to be conventional wisdom that bellicosity equals “seriousness” about foreign affairs, which is the sin qua non of having a snowball’s chance of getting elected. Any suggestion, say, that the idea of a global, generations-spanning “war on terrorism” and its attendant consequences for things like civil liberties and the treatment of prisoners might be an overreaction to a serious, but not existential threat has thus far been a one-way ticket to political irrelevance.

That’s why having an indisputably “serious” candidate like Chuck Hagel in the field, someone who takes a more moderate line, could serve to move the debate in a more reasonable direction.