Posted on 04/29/2015 11:37:24 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
LAS VEGAS — Ted Cruz wants you to know that he isn’t a Rand Paul on foreign policy – but he isn’t a John McCain either.
The Texas senator and Republican presidential contender outlined his foreign policy worldview Friday in an in-depth interview with The Daily Caller from the lobby of the Mandarin Oriental in Sin City, where he was in town to attend both the Republican Jewish Coalition’s Spring Meeting and a convention of evangelical pastors.
“The touchstone of foreign policy should be the vital national security interest of America,” Cruz said, arguing his foreign policy was neither “full neocon” nor “libertarian isolationist.”
“I believe America should be a clarion voice for freedom. The bully pulpit of the American president has enormous potency,” he added, before praising former President Ronald Reagan for changing the “arc of history” by demanding Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev tear down the Berlin Wall and lambasting President Barack Obama for not sufficiently standing on the side of freedom during Iran’s 2009 Green Revolution.
But, Cruz noted, speaking out for freedom “is qualitatively different from saying U.S. military forces should intervene to force democracy on foreign lands.”
“Historically, America has always been reluctant to engage in military conflict,” he said. “It’s worth noting, in eight years, the largest country Ronald Reagan ever invaded was Grenada.”
Cruz says he is a hawk on some issues, like preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. But on other foreign policy questions, like whether to support the Syrian rebels in their fight against Bashar al-Assad, he is more hesitant because he doesn’t see how it will benefit American interests.
“Assad is a bad actor, no doubt about it. He’s a monster who’s murdered hundreds of thousands of his own citizens, women, and children with chemical weapons, but the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend,” Cruz said. “I opposed President Obama’s proposed military attack against Syria because the administration was not able to articulate how it furthered U.S. national security interest, and the consequence of arming the rebels, among those rebels are radical Islamic terrorists.”
Cruz says “if and when U.S. military force is required,” it should only “proceed under three preconditions.” You might call it the “Cruz Doctrine.”
“First, it should begin with a clearly stated objective at the outset. It should be directly tied to U.S. national security,” he said. “Second, we should use overwhelming force to that objective. We should not have rules of engagement that tie the hands of our soldiers and sailors and airmen and Marines.”
The final point in the Cruz Doctrine is that the U.S. military should not be asked to help birth democratic societies.
“Third, we should get the heck out,” he said. “It is not the job of the U.S. military to engage in nation building to turn foreign countries into democratic utopias.”
Cruz’s foreign policy differs from Rand Paul’s because, among other things, he appears more willing to commit American military might if necessary than the Kentucky senator, such as potentially in Iran. But Cruz sometimes opposes more hawkish senators like John McCain, Lindsey Graham and — arguably — Marco Rubio because he doesn’t believe America should use the military to help spread democracy abroad.
As the Washington Examiner’s Philip Klein recently noted, “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.”
A better word is “ Gullibility “ .
They will gamble on gullibility and lose.
Amen, they have left their excrement all over FR, typical liberals.
RAND PAUL Neolib
Cruz or Lose!
How much $ does Cruz have? Because really, that’s all it comes down to.
I haven’t seen Ted Cruz on T.V. at all. If I polled 100 people, 10 of them would know who he was.
Point I’m trying to make is: He can win, but not without huge support from boots on the ground. Everywhere.
First. To sway establishment GOP to nominate him.
Second. To sway the electorate to elect him.
All of that can be accomplished by 2 things.
1.) The MSM portraying Cruz in a positive light. Which will not happen, if they say anything at all. Even this article throws him in the league with Rand and Ron Paul. Although he is certainly a heavyweight.
2.) Massive, massive , massive public support from Repubs, conservatives, and independents. As in united.
Now don’t get me wrong, I’m a pessimistic realist. As proud as I would be to call this man President, I just don’t think he has a very good chance at actually becoming President.
But, he’s the only chance we all have for a real leader in office. So the discussion should only be about: How do we get this man elected to President of the United States of America. That should be the top priority of this community. Everything else will follow.
People keep saying it’s not the job of the military, yet that would be news to centuries’ worth of military and civilian leaders, wouldn’t it? Maybe this will be the guy not to send us on these missions, but I highly doubt it.
Like Desert Storm
1) National Interest - Kuwait oil and global distribution
2) Overwhelming force - General Norman Schwarzkopf
3) Get Out - Saddam left to deal with his defeat
I agree with you and every freedom loving person must stand with Cruz. Cruz is in it for the fight. Wait for the debates, his light will shine!
In other words, Cruz is a foreign policy realist - as Reagan was.
GHW Bush got a lot of flack from neoconservatives for being a "wimp" because he left Saddam Hussein in power. In fact, he did the sensible thing because he and Baker realized that a stable Iraq under a tyrant is better than an Iraq blown up by tribal and sectarian civil war, or an Iraq allied to Iran. In retrospect he and his foreign policy team (realists, not neocon nation-builders) were right.
I am not a neo-con. But there is a LOT of room in between a neocon and a Paultard foreign policy. Both are foolish in my opinion. Cruz sounds like he’s on the level.
Well said.
President Cruz — nothing else needs to be said
If it were between Paul and Grahamnesty I would vote for Paul as I hate Grahamnesty.
If there is not an apparent consensus by (the few) patriots in Congress on the acceptable use of tactical nuclear weapons, then military action probably has not reached the level of a national interest necessity.
Better pack lots of food, and warm clothes.
Cool!
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.