With just days before the Nov. 8 election, when it comes to our nation’s security, Hillary Clinton is the undisputed choice of senior-level former diplomats living and working in the battleground state of New Hampshire. It is a no-brainer to endorse the presidential candidacy of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and oppose the election of Donald Trump.

In addition to myself, this endorsement is shared by other former diplomats in New Hampshire, career and non-career, Republican and Democrat, including Dan Benjamin, Hanover, ambassador-at-large for counterterrorism threats; Jim Smith, Salem, ambassador to Saudi Arabia; Terry Shumaker, Concord, ambassador to Trinidad; Dick Swett, Bow, ambassador to Denmark; Betty Tamposi, New Castle, assistant secretary of state; and Don Petterson, Brentwood, ambassador to Somalia, Tanzania and Sudan. Here’s why.

Donald Trump has neither held elective office nor worked in government. His statements reveal a sketchy knowledge of the U.S. Constitution and the workings of government. In fact, listeners at times may be excused if he seems to be reliving his role as reality TV host or appearing as an actor on "Saturday Night Live."

His sense of accountability is untested. Equally of concern is his jarring behavior since announcing his run for president, reflecting a short attention span, a lack of self-restraint, an absence of empathy and an inability to convey thoughts in complete sentences.

As to basic issues on the domestic front, we do not dwell on Donald Trump’s failure to disclose his tax returns or medical records, nor the investigations into Trump University and his self-dealings with his charitable foundation. We don’t even wish to comment on his 2005 "locker-room"-style conversation with Billy Bush as to how he views women.

And while we deplore his bashing of journalists and oppose his desire to loosen libel protections in order to sue them, we do not focus on his tax plan that would largely benefit him and other billionaires, nor his numerous bankruptcies and the over 3,000 lawsuits in which he refused to pay tradesmen who did work for him.

We choose not to speculate on his bizarre tweets at 3 a.m. fixated on a beauty contestant, nor his demeaning name-calling of people who disagree with him, nor even his failure to denounce his endorsement by the leader of the Klu Kux Klan, David Duke, any combination of the above which would be disqualifying recommendations for the presidency.

Instead, Donald Trump should be disqualified to be the next president of the United States based on his foreign policy and national security pronouncements alone. Let’s recall that he:

• Wants to bring back waterboarding torture.

• Thinks global warming is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese.

• Holds up dictators and authoritarian leaders as his role models, like Russian President Vladimir Putin.

• Wants to abrogate our trade treaties.

• Thinks NATO is antiquated.

• Wants to ban Muslims from entry to the U.S.

• Will renegotiate our national debts with other nations, undermining America’s commitments.

• Wants to build a multibillion-dollar border wall and says Mexico will pay for it.

• Favors Brexit (and the absence of our closest ally inside the European Union).

• Feels he knows more about fighting ISIS than "the generals."

• Has no credible plan to deal with the world refugee crisis.

• Has invited Russia to hack the email of U.S. citizens.

• Wants to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S., beginning on "day one."

• Wants to rebuild our military without increasing our national debt nor our military "footprint." Explain that.

And his questionable list to "Make America Great Again" goes on and on. In international affairs, words do matter. Donald Trump’s policy pronouncements are scary and, if implemented, would contribute to a less stable, less predictable, less democratic, less peaceful world and thus less secure United States. As Hillary Clinton has reminded us numerous times, anyone who can be baited by a tweet should not have access to the nuclear codes.

Why do we endorse Hillary Clinton? First, because she opposes all of the above. Second, we know her and have confidence in her capacity to listen, learn and take action appropriately. We believe she is by far the more experienced, knowledgeable and steady hand to lead our country, particularly dealing with international affairs, national security and relations with other world leaders.

To be clear, America is great. She will make America greater.

George Bruno is a former U.S. ambassador to Belize and senior executive at the Pentagon.

Newsletter