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.”
What about Rush’s “excrement list” policy as well?
We give foreign aid only to those who don’t oppose our national interests, including votes at the UN.
I’d be thrilled if we ONLY went that far. Personally me and my unicorn would like to see all of it go except Israel, who has for years served as our punching bag for muslims. We owe them.
“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.”
YESSS!!! SHOUT THIS FROM THE ROOFTOPS!!!
Cruz Doctrine:
1) There must be a direct National Security interest
2) We must use overwhelming force
3) We must not nation build
I can support that.
Cruz is exactly right.
He needs to boil that down to fewer words and repeat it often.
See above.
bfl
That’s here on FR. I meant in general. There have been many articles about Ron/Rand Paul supporters and other libertarian & liberty group people moving over to Ted Cruz.
Yeah, I’m all for only giving aid to those who aren’t opposed to us,
but you know that leftists have their twisted view that we should give to those who oppose us because they have legitimate grievances.
In general the general population and political class is on a freaking jihad to trash him. My point is as it has always been. We here refuse to get behind the man who is about lockstep with what we spout off on thread after thread. And if we, the furthest of the right are doing that, we obviously re not able to effectively counter the crap outside this site...which there is myrad more of.
FR as a group, threw Palin to the dogs rather than fight for her. It is happening with Cruz, who IMO DESERVES ALL OUR FULL SUPPORT. So do we stand here and let Palin Redux happen or fix our own problem so we can fight for what we CLAIM we believe elsewhere?
It’s hard for me to understand why conservatives haven’t dropped everything to unite behind this man.
Conservatives did. Those chasing Flip and the rest are simply rehashing the lesser evil meme. They don’t actually want conservatism. If they did, they would support the most conservative person.
Once again they will gamble on ‘electability’ and lose.
Yeah, I see all the articles pushing one or the other of those. Mostly one.
I’m going to keep praying for the scales to fall.
Bravo!
It would take divine intervention because being that willfully stupid is beyond mortal fixing. And if any of them wish to explain why rejecting the man who 99% supports their claimed conservative positions, I am all ears. I think they should tell us. Why is it that men who flip or outright reject conservative positions are preferable to promote freely on a conservative site.
That IS what they are doing.
If he can justify that being in war with Iran is in our interests, he can justify any incursion. The voice is the voice of Cruz but the words are the words of a neo-con.
You don’t think that a nuclear-armed Shiite theocracy in Iran is dangerous? Pray tell, define dangerous then?
I suspect some of it has to do with the governor vs. senator meme, which I’ve tried to disprove several times and will again, I’m sure.
As Rush said, it’s about the man and the ideology, bottom line. Obama wouldn’t be a better president if he’d served as governor of a state. He’s lousy because he’s a leftwing radical.
Cruz is not only Obama’s political polar opposite...he’s also brilliant. And he welcomes the fight from the liberal morons; he’s thinking way ahead of all of them.
Take all that into consideration, along with the fact that he has been completely consistent in his stances....what else do you want??
That post is exactly what I’m talking about 2DV.
Sorry, I’m not Jewish.
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.