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.”
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.”
THIS MAN GETS IT !!!
I like this guy.
sounds very good indeed....
let’s hope we survive the next 21 months so we have opportunity to fix WashDC (and get the govt out of suppressing the American economy and jobs for American citizens)
“Overwhelming force”’is an expression that has all but disappeared from the Executive Office lexicon since Obie’s election.
Meanwhile, Walker is likely evolving an opinion. Jeb is somewhere babbling something in Spanish, while Paul is calling his dad.
Go Ted go! Use that “overwhelming force” to utterly exterminate every last vestige of islam (satan’s “religion”) from the planet! The cancer of muhammadism can’t be tolerated in any form, it must be completely eradicated everywhere without mercy, giving no quarter. Restore America’s Biblical foundation!
Sounds a lot like my concept, except I add in a point between #1 and #2 where you overtly threaten the bad actors prior to actually obliterating them.
And then add a #4: Lather, rinse, repeat. This is important because it’s going to take a few tries before it sinks in that we as a country are serious, based on our recent history. It’s going to take a few passes through the model before the rest of the world understands that when we get to “threaten”, they’d better make corrective action before we move to “obliterate”.
So, my model is:
1. Articulate the U.S. national interest at stake
2. Give an ultimatum to those acting against that interest
3. Use overwhelming force to remove those acting against that interest
4. Get out
5. Repeat to the point where you never have to get past #2 again
Cruz does get it and it’s not the first time he has espoused these ideas. He is out in front of rest of the pack of sometimes and faux conservative contenders.
Ignore the polls and Rove propaganda machine; he is the one to get behind.
I have a tear in my eye I am so happy...!
Number 3 is the killer.
That is twice now today that he has taken what the low information voter would see as the moderate position, which is actually the conservative position http://thehill.com/policy/technology/240383-cruz-stakes-out-spot-in-2016-patriot-act-fight . Excellent positioning to dispell the right-wing crazy narrative.
I don't see that they have a choice:)
We spend more on the military than almost all the other countries combined.
Yes yes but the liberal wing of FR doesn’t want that. They want Flip, Rand and Rubio.
So thats likely what we will get.
His professors didn’t call him brilliant as a joke.
Once again Sen. Cruz is out front clearly describing his principles and intentions. Bravo.
Many of Rand’s former supporters and those of his father have already gone over to Cruz. Do you want to see the links?
Now let’s make him president.
I don’t need to. I came out of hibernation after seeing two solid weeks of threads invaded by right wing liberals trashing him. So I’m confident that there is a large contingent here working actively against him just as they did and still do against Palin.
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.