Posted on 04/16/2015 11:06:48 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
When it comes to foreign policy, the 2016 Republican presidential race is often presented as a contrast between Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and everybody else.
As the narrative goes, Paul has a record of advocating for less intervention in foreign affairs, while the rest of the field has endorsed a more muscular posture. But this is an oversimplification.
Though the differences Paul has with the rest of the party deserve attention, a far more interesting — and important — debate is the one likely to emerge between Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida and Ted Cruz of Texas.
On the surface, Rubio and Cruz are hard to tell apart on foreign policy. Both have harshly criticized President Obama for showing weakness to the nation's enemies and hostility toward allies. Both have argued for the importance of projecting strength abroad. Both have warned of the dangers when the U.S. cowers from promoting American values on the world stage. There won't be much daylight between the candidates when it comes to issues such as preventing a nuclear Iran and supporting Israel.
But scratch beneath the surface, and there are subtle but important distinctions that reveal a deeper debate on the right over the proper role for the United States overseas.
In a little-remembered speech he made back in March 2014, Cruz described how there weren't just two, but three sides in the foreign policy debate among Republicans.
"There is a lot of discussion about the differing views in the Republican Party and are Americans war weary?" Cruz observed at an off-site event during CPAC sponsored by Breitbart News Network and Frank Gaffney's Center for Security Policy. "Are we war weary and as the consequence to that, does that mean we are no longer willing to defend ourselves? I think that is a profound misreading of the American people."
He continued, "Now listen, I agree with many of the libertarian critics that the job of our military is not to intervene all around the world and to be the policeman for the world. And I'll give an example. The Republican Party — you can point to two points on two ends of the spectrum, where foreign policy views lie. On one side you have the views of John McCain. The other end of the spectrum, you have the views of Rand Paul. And I would note with respect, my views are very much the views of Ronald Reagan, which I would suggest is a third point on the triangle."
As a concrete example, Cruz went on to describe his opposition to launching a military attack on Syria. Though he described Bashar Assad as a "brutal tyrant," he said "the enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend. And just because he is a brutal tyrant doesn't mean the rebels are any better." He said radical Islamic terrorists infiltrated the rebel groups, and if Assad's regime fell, those terrorists could get their hands on chemical weapons, "an even worse outcome for U.S. national security interests."
He summarized, "My view, just like President Reagan on foreign policy, is if and when we are called to use military force, we should do so with a clear defined objective that is directly keyed off of U.S. national security. We should go in with overwhelming force. And then we should get the heck out. I don't think, and I think most Americans don't think, we should be engaged in nation building, building democratic utopias across the world."
In contrast to Cruz's views, Rubio has spent his Senate career largely allied with McCain. He's expressed optimism about the potential for the U.S. to help spread secular democracy in the Middle East and protect human rights. He backed U.S. intervention in Libya and argued for the goal of removing Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi.
In an Oct. 2011 Wall Street Journal op-ed he co-authored with McCain (along with Sens. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.,), Rubio recounted a trip the senators took. "Last Thursday we arrived in Tripoli to the promise of a free Libya," Rubio and the other senators wrote. They also reported, "the Libyans we met want to build a secure, prosperous and democratic nation that rejects violent extremism, allies itself with America and our allies, and promotes the peaceful ideals of the Arab Spring."
Throughout 2013, Rubio advocated arming the Syrian opposition. While Cruz argued this would be counterproductive, Rubio insisted that the democratically-minded rebels could be differentiated from the elements linked to terrorist groups. In contrast to Cruz, who warned of an even worse outcome if Assad fell, Rubio argued in March 2013 that, "it's in the national interest of the United States for Bashar al-Assad to leave. It's in our national interest for that government to fall." More broadly, he said, "I think the United States has always stood on the side of human rights, should always continue to stand on the side of democracy."
Though Rubio eventually opposed Obama's call for military action — saying he didn't think it would be effective as proposed — even in doing so, he argued that the U.S. should support efforts by the Syrian people to topple Assad "and replace him with a secular and moderate government they deserve."
Though the philosophical contrast between Rand Paul and the rest of the GOP field may be starker and thus easier to describe, at the end of the day, no Republican president is going to adopt a foreign policy akin to Paul's in the near future.
Right now, a broader cross-section of Republicans are torn between the failures of the Bush administration's efforts to promote democracy in the Middle East and the perils of Obama's reluctance to project American power. That's why, ultimately, the debate between Cruz and Rubio is more relevant.
—In contrast to Cruz’s views, Rubio has spent his Senate career largely allied with McCain.—
Stopped reading right there. McCain is one of the most despicable traitors in government. Either Rubio can’t see that, or is cut from the same cloth. Either way - MR is not presidential material.
Give me Cruz or I stay home election night.
That was Bush's stated policy, but faced with the realities of post-war Iraq one that could not work. Events have shown that having toppled the Baathists, a stabilizing force was required to keep the country from unraveling and becoming a failed state.
Proof of that came when Obama pulled the stabilizing force out, and the country became a playground for ISIS and Iran.
If you are going to knock over the established order, you have to have a plan for what comes next. In and out is the right answer sometimes. Rebuilding is the right answer sometimes. Its hard to reduce these things to a bumper-sticker.
Using Al Qaeda to knock over Khadafi and Assad probably sounded like a clever idea to some (like McCain) but it has side-effects. Getting your enemies to fight one another is sometimes a good plan, but not always. So again its hard to reduce these things to a bumper-sticker. Thats why you try to have adults making these decisions, and not nutcases like McCain, and certainly not the likes of an Obama.
I like Rubio. He doesn't strike me as having the necessary toughness or seasoning for the presidency. I wonder how he would be after 8 years as VP under Cruz.
That’s where I stopped reading, too.
Every time I read an analysis comparing Cruz’s positions with somebody else’s, I go with Cruz.
Please—Rand, Marco—give up now. Let Cruz go up against Jeb—the murderer of Terri Schiavo—the governor who murdered one of his own citizens.
The establishment is worried about Cruz. They are going to try to use Rubio and Walker to bloody him and dilute his support.
I don’t think its going to work, he will come out of any contest with them looking competent and classy, which he is.
I hope they don’t waste too much energy on one another; either Walker or Rubio would be a good pick for VP if they don’t soil themselves during the primaries.
1) There was no reason to "knock over the established order."2) "Nation building" does not work. Therefore, it is never an option.
Marco Rineo is Jeb Bush’s valet’....
Kato to Jeb’s Green Hornet, Robin to his Batman, etc.
He didn’t get where he is today or gain all those titles and accolades in school from affirmative action, unlike our current executive. If they go in on the assumption that he did they’ll come away with their noses bloodied.
Rubio is an empty suit, check the boxes pseudo-conservative. Ted Cruz is that rare thing, a politician who actually thinks, and is grounded in both morality and pragmatic realism. We used to call such people statesmen.
Agreed.
At the beginning of Rubio’s Senate campaign, he spoke before a District 4 2010 election kickoff event in Lake City, Florida. That was early June. He spoke very clearly and passionately to those attending, including myself and my wife.
I will never forget how rock solid his immigration stance was when asked about it and I, like so many others, who also heard him reinforce Border Security completed first before any discussion about illegals in this country could begin in any serious manner.
He spoke with just a few note cards but on this issue never looked down to them.
Then came the Gang of 8. To align himself with McCain and Shamnesty Graham was bad enough but to really turn the knife by associating with Schmuckie Schumer and Durbin was all byond belief. Then to find out it was his signature Bill . . .
I then realized he lied to us, but more importantly, he lied to us from his heart. Unforgivable. If he were running for the Senate again and was on the ballot, I would leave that choice blank.
Having him as a VP wold be tantamount to the huge mistake Reagan made in accepting the party’s wishes for 41.
Germany, Japan, South Korea... never say never.
The difference is we occupied those places with a large, overwhelming force and enforced our RULES before we gave them the option of governing themselves.
There were pockets of resistance but they were roughly handled and controlled {it would not be acceptable in today's politically correct world}.
Those are not Muslim countries. We didn’t have to introduce civilization into any of them. We assisted them to recover from war; we didn’t have to “nation-build.”
Bruce Lee played the Kato character in the short run TV series of the Green Hornet before Bruce Lee became famous in his legdgonary 3 movies, so I would not compare Marco Rubio with Bruce Lee the Kato guy.
More like a Manturain canadate.... A plant by the RINOs
As an observer in Texas, I was disappointed in Rubio's lead role in the Gang of 8, as were all TEA Party supporters who favored Rubio in the election for U.S. Senate. A politician changing a position is one thing, but you eloquently express the magnitude of Rubio's deceit revealing the deeply flawed character hidden under his charming countenance and oratory skill. Your story, together with the jarring reminder in this article of who Rubio has chosen to ally with in the Senate on foreign policy, are enough for me.
Rubio is untrustworthy and should not be the GOP nominee. I wouldn't want Rubio considered for VP in a Cruz presidency or cabinet position.
Good point. Good reminder.
We didn't have to introduce civilization to Japan? The japs of the time worshiped the emperor as if he were a god.
They would gladly have given up their lives for their emperor, much like the mooselimb suicide bombers.
They had no democracy, we definitely had to "nation build" in japan in the late 40s.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.