Last week, The Economist called Pakistan one of the world’s most dangerous places. Over the last year, I’ve written about the extreme danger that lurks in this region. With more than 40 nuclear weapons controlled and secured by a very unstable government, Pakistan poses a major threat to world peace.

It is amazing that there has been almost no debate or discussion among the candidates of either party regarding their plans to correct our failed policy towards this nation. In foreign policy debates, along with the Iraq War, Pakistan should be one of the most pressing issues in the campaign. The Economist says it best:

"The war against Islamist extremism and the terrorism it spawns is being fought on many fronts. But it may well be in Pakistan that it is won or lost. It is not only that the country's lawless frontier lands provide a refuge for al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, and that its jihad academies train suicide-bombers with global reach. Pakistan is also itself the world's second most populous Muslim nation, with a proud tradition of tolerance and moderation, now under threat from the extremists on its fringes. Until recently, the risk that Pakistan might be prey to Islamic fundamentalism of the sort its Taliban protégés enforced in Afghanistan until 2001 seemed laughable. It is still far-fetched. But after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, twice prime minister, nobody is laughing. This, after all, is a country that now has the bomb Miss Bhutto's father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, craved so passionately as prime minister in the 1970s."

Can you imagine more than 40 nuclear weapons in the hands of radical fundamentalists? Apparently the presidential candidates can’t because none of them has spent much time at all talking about how to deal with this emerging crisis. We have a window of opportunity to seek peaceful solutions by revamping our policies.

The Economist called out America’s current policy towards Pakistan:

"The unpopularity of the Musharraf regime, hostility towards America, and resentment at a war in neighbouring Afghanistan that many in Pakistan see as directed at both Islam and their ethnic-Pushtun kin, have also helped the Islamists.

So, ironically, America's support for Mr. Musharraf, justified as necessary to combat extremism next door, has fostered extremism at home. Similarly, in the 1980s America backed General Zia ul Haq, a dictator and Islamic fundamentalist, as his intelligence services sponsored the mujahideen who eventually toppled the Soviet-backed regime in Afghanistan. In the process, they helped create what Miss Bhutto called a “Frankenstein's monster”—of jihadist groups with sympathisers in the army and intelligence services. The clubbable, whisky-quaffing, poodle-cuddling Mr. Musharraf is no fundamentalist. But the monster still stalks his security forces."

The time for a peaceful resolution is running out. By ignoring Pakistan and other hot spots, the candidates are denying us a choice of peaceful options. We urgently need to hear from them on their plans to deal with the current crisis and how they will achieve peace in the long-term.