Does your Republican congressional candidate support the War in Afghanistan?

The old line press typically ignores the fact that we’re at war. But when President Obama fired one general and brought in the man credited with turning the tide in Iraq, General David Petraeus, the War in Afghanistan made the news.

Yesterday I had a reason to visit the websites of two GOP congressional candidates doing research on fiscal issues – but I took a moment to click around and see if they had the guts to utter the word “Afghanistan.”

I am pleased to report that both Isaac Hayes and Joel Pollak address Afghanistan and write that they support the American military mission there.

Isaac Hayes is running in the 2nd Congressional District against Democrat incumbent Jesse Jackson Jr. Hayes’ website includes this language:

America and Rogue Nation-States

The American government must refuse the terrorists control of any nation-state that they would utilize as a base and launching pad for terror. The terrorists’ goal is to overthrow a rising democracy; claim a strategic country as a haven for terror; destabilize the Middle East; and strike America and other free nations with ever-increasing violence. This we can never allow. This is why success in Afghanistan and Iraq is vital, and why we must prevent terrorists from exploiting ungoverned areas across the globe.

Joel Pollak is running in the 9th Congressional District against Democrat incumbent Jan Schakowsky. Pollak has this language on his website:

Victory in Afghanistan

I support the effort to win the war in Afghanistan. We cannot allow Afghanistan to fall once again into the hands of the Taliban and terror groups. Our intelligence services must also be allowed to do their work without political interference. I will oppose politicized prosecutions of intelligence agents who were acting within the law as they understood it and in a time of great danger.

I rarely venture into the topic of foreign policy, but I did in the fall of 2007 when Congressional Republicans were failing miserably to defend the troop surge in Iraq. As a service, this column culled information from dozens of experts and outlined several important basics.

  • What was wrong with our foreign policy that needed to change following September 11, 2001?
  • Why did we invade Iraq? (FYI – weapons of mass destruction was only one of more than twenty reasons why the United States decided to take out Saddam Hussein.)
  • Exactly what went wrong in Iraq in the months and years that followed our invasion?
  • Why can’t the United States just stay out of all of the world’s conflicts and concentrate instead on defending our shores?

Everything that I posted Americans should have been able to learn from their political leaders – especially from their Republican members of Congress.

Last fall while Barrack Obama was fiddling and deciding whether or not to order a troop surge into Afghanistan, we again sought out the experts and posted what they had to say. We sought to answer the obvious questions – like what the heck are we doing in Afghanistan – can we win – and what exactly is our goal there?

Americans are busy; they’re not stupid. They understood Ronald Reagan’s “peace through strength” foreign policy. They understand the danger of weakness. They realize the world is a dangerous place. And they understand that our policy and our use of the military must make sense. They do, however, have to be sold on both the policy and the purpose of sending our soldiers overseas and into harm’s way.

My compliments to Isaac Hayes and Joel Pollak for not being afraid of tackling the issue. The public deserves to hear more from those they nominate and elect.