The Republican presidential candidates highlighted their party’s lack of a single national security vision a decade after the Sept. 11 attacks, differing on Tuesday night over the pace of withdrawal from Afghanistan, aid to Pakistan and, in an exchange that could resonate dangerously for Newt Gingrich, what to do with illegal immigrants in the United States.
Wading into treacherous territory in Republican primary politics just as he is climbing in polls, Mr. Gingrich said during a nationally televised debate that he would support allowing some illegal immigrants — those who had been in the country for decades, had paid taxes and had raised families here — to remain in the United States. Mr. Gingrich, a former speaker of the House, warned that the party could not claim a family-friendly mantle if it was to “adopt an immigration policy which destroys families that have been here a quarter century.”
Similar comments by Gov. Rick Perry of Texas at a debate several weeks ago were viewed as hurting him greatly with many conservative voters, especially in Iowa, which is to hold the first nominating contest, on Jan. 3.
“I’m prepared to take the heat for saying let’s be humane in enforcing the law without giving them citizenship,” Mr. Gingrich said, “but by finding a way to create legality so that they are not separated from their families.”
Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota quickly challenged him, telling the debate moderator, Wolf Blitzer of CNN, “I think the speaker just said that he would make 11 people, 11 million people who are here illegally now, legal.”
It was but one bone of contention in a substantive debate that brought to the fore differences among the candidates on a variety of foreign policy issues, but it was the one that seemed to hold the most chance to affect the race at a moment when Mr. Gingrich has emerged as a leading challenger to former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts.
The candidates by and large struck a hawkish tone in dealing with Iran and protecting the United States from terrorist attacks.
But under questioning from Mr. Blitzer and an array of conservative and neoconservative officials from past administrations now affiliated with the other sponsors — the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation — the candidates engaged in a number of spirited debates among themselves.
Mr. Perry called for a no-fly zone over Syria to limit that government’s violence against its people. Mr. Romney seemed to mock the proposal in the context of Syria’s use of ground forces, saying, “A no-fly zone wouldn’t be the right military action — maybe a no-drive zone.”
Channeling Hillary Rodham Clinton’s chastisement of Barack Obama in Democratic primary debates four years ago, Mrs. Bachmann called Mr. Perry “highly naïve” for suggesting cutting off American aid to Pakistan, calling that nation “too nuclear to fail.”
Representative Ron Paul of Texas chastised his Republican opponents for surrendering civil liberties to the fight against terrorists, for taking a hard line on Iran and for supporting the idea of using racial profiling to single out terrorism suspects, specifically Muslims — a criticism that former Gov. Jon M. Huntsman Jr. of Utah echoed.
Mr. Huntsman, a former ambassador to China, got into one of the sharpest exchanges of the evening with Mr. Romney, whom he is hoping to upset in the New Hampshire primary despite his relative low standing in polls. Mr. Huntsman repeated his call for most American troops to leave Afghanistan quickly, while Mr. Romney is insistent that troops should stay longer than President Obama has decreed.
“We don’t need 100,000 troops,” Mr. Huntsman said, clearly reveling in having a substantive back and forth with the front-runner.
“This is not time for America to cut and run,” Mr. Romney replied.
The debate at Constitution Hall, just blocks from the White House, put pressure on the candidates to show their policy expertise in a way few, if any, had before. Mr. Blitzer’s questions were augmented by those of a lineup that included Edwin Meese III, who served as attorney general under Ronald Reagan; Paul Wolfowitz, a former deputy defense secretary and a leading architect of the Iraq war under George W. Bush; and David Addington, a counselor to former Vice President Dick Cheney.
The debate highlighted more than merely the differences in the foreign policy views of the eight presidential candidates, most of whom spent extra time preparing for what one campaign strategist compared to an “A.P. exam.”
The conversation also drew attention to a significant transition inside the party, with old Republican arguments on fresh display in a new world of debt-conscious Washington.
The candidates showed their differences on the potential cuts to the military that inched closer to a reality this week after a Congressional committee failed to find $1.2 trillion in deficit reductions, which could mean $500 billion in reductions to the Pentagon budget over the next 10 years.
While Mr. Romney declared that such cuts would be draconian — he blamed Mr. Obama for failing to take a leadership role — Mr. Gingrich said that he would not shy away from finding efficiencies in military spending.
“There are some things you can do in defense that are less expensive,” Mr. Gingrich said.
There was general — but not universal — agreement on Iran.
Mr. Gingrich said he would support an Israeli strike against Iran, if “only as a last recourse and only as step toward replacing the regime.”
Herman Cain, the former Godfather’s Pizza chief executive, went one further, saying he would go so far as to help the Israelis in an attack on Iran, though only if “it was clear what the mission was and it was clear what the definition of victory was.”
Mr. Romney said he would “stand up to Iran with crippling sanctions.”
The candidates with Congressional and administration experience seemed to have a stronger grasp on the issues, with former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania reaching back to his days on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Mrs. Bachmann giving rapid-fire responses from her experience on the House Select Intelligence Committee and Mr. Huntsman talking about his time serving as ambassador to China.
When asked whether the United States could still afford programs like AIDS programs in Africa, Mr. Santorum said America could not afford not to. He said his Republican rivals were being short-sighted in their thinking by cutting humanitarian relief.
“Zero-out all the things we do to develop relationships around the world and we will spend a lot more money on the military,” he said.
Mr. Romney, striving to establish himself as the most presidential of the field, seemed to make a point of exhibiting his facility in foreign policy, giving a mini-lecture on Syria, for instance, saying, “We need to meet with the Alawites, to make sure they understand that they have a future after Assad, that they don’t have to link with him.” President Bashar al-Assad of Syria is a member of the minority Alawite sect.