The Democratic contenders for the nomination to fill Barack Obama's former U.S. Senate seat all pledge to strongly back their home-state president's agenda, but they are sharply divided when it comes to his strategy for the war in Afghanistan.
Responding to a Tribune survey on foreign affairs, Republicans seeking the Feb. 2 Senate nomination generally say they believe Obama did not go far enough in promising to increase U.S. military strength in Afghanistan.
This month, Obama announced plans to deploy an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan, along with setting July 2011 for the start of a military withdrawal. Obama's strategy has caused divisions among Democrats, some of whom want to see the president announce a quick end to the war.
"It is time to take care of America again and time to bring our troops home," said Democratic Senate contender Cheryle Jackson, a former president of the Chicago Urban League. "Until we stop spending hundreds of billions on wars, we will not have the focus or money to solve the challenges we face at home."
Jackson's call for an end to the war was joined by Democratic contender Robert Marshall. But Democrat David Hoffman, a former Chicago inspector general, was skeptical of Obama's troop buildup.
"My concern is that the mission of securing all of Afghanistan is very broad, expands our core mission of protecting us from al-Qaida, is a potentially open-ended mission, and is likely to be very costly in lives and dollars," Hoffman said.
But first-term state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, a Democrat, said he fully supported Obama's strategy for Afghanistan and indicated that those who oppose it are engaging in wishful thinking.
"In a perfect world, our troops would be at home with their families and this war would be over," he said. "But we are not dealing with a perfect world. We are dealing with perhaps the most complex, dangerous region in the world ... where nuclear weapons could fall into the hands of fanatics and terrorists."
Chicago attorney Jacob Meister, another Democratic contender, said he was satisfied that Obama "has clearly defined the mission's objectives, set a timetable for completion and outlined a responsible exit strategy."
Among Republicans, North Shore U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk, who served a tour as a naval reservist in Kandahar, and contenders Patrick Hughes and Kathleen Thomas said that while they backed Obama's strategy, even more military personnel should be sent in line with the 44,000-troop surge recommended by the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal.
Hughes, a Hinsdale developer, said Obama's decision not to fully comply with the general's request "raises the question of his confidence in Gen. McChrystal's vision and strategy."
At the same time, Hughes and Republican contender John Arrington of Harvey criticized Obama for setting a date for withdrawal. Arrington said the July 2011 date, "gives the Taliban time to wreak havoc on the country prior to the date so our troops may be required to stay longer."
Another Republican contender, former judge Donald Lowery, of Golconda, said any increase in troop strength should be "accompanied by a lifting of the restrictions on the rules of engagement and pursuit."
All of the Democratic contenders indicated varying levels of support for reviewing or reopening U.S. trade pacts, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, on issues involving labor, health and environmental concerns.
Republicans, however, were split on the issue of trade.
Kirk warned that with Illinois' high unemployment, "we should not risk a trade war with our state's top export markets."
Hughes and Thomas also agreed that reopening trade pacts represented a form of unnecessary protectionism.
But Arrington said "free trade must include 'fair' free trade" and proposed renegotiating agreements to protect American manufacturing jobs.
Lowery said "all trade agreements should be periodically evaluated."
Source:chicagotribune.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment