I suspect people will learn two things this primary season. First, Ted Cruz is closer to Rand Paul on unnecessary intervention - meaning that which is against our interests or too great a risk of our blood & treasure - than he is to Rubio, et al. Second, the GOP will learn that the American people are beyond tired of tap dancing with Muslim extremism and are inclined toward annihilation rather than intervention. Arming rebels has not worked in our favor.
Only person that could be worse on foreign policy than Obama is Hillary.
Good article; thanks for posting.
I am closer to Rand Paul on foreign policy than I am to Rubio. Rubio has fallen under the influence of Total War At All Times McCain and Graham.
But Cruz has it just right in my opinion:
“Ted Cruz falls somewhere in between Paul and Rubio. ... [H]is positions are not reflexively hawkish. While supporting a muscular military and showing a willingness to intervene abroad, Cruz has opposed “nation building,” as well as interventions that he believed were not in America’s national interest. He says that the United States should not be trying to “build democratic utopias across the world” and that the job of the military is to “hunt down and kill our enemies.”
“He has favored more vigorous action against ISIS, but has been skeptical about putting American boots on the ground. Instead he would more aggressively arm and train the Kurds, among others. He opposed military action against al-Assad in Syria, and was skeptical about U.S. intervention in Libya.”
Though, I think Rand is better on the Patriot Act and NSA spying on its citizens that is Ted.