Replies

As I said yesterday, in my comments on the Rand article you pinged me on, I think Cruz may have the best balance on foreign policy - between the discredited nation building and aggressive interventionism of McCain and the war hawks, and the unrealistic non-interventionism of Ron Paul.

(Note: I said Ron on purpose, Rand himself has positioned himself more to the center than his father whose answer to every issue was stay out.)

This piece reinforces my views on Cruz's smart middle position. If anything it makes me think he's really good on foreign policy, and can make distinctions where people on the extremes want to use the same prescription regardless of the situation. (McCain: BOMB, Boots on Ground)(Ron Paul: Don't Get Involved)

Milbank's piece is poorly thought out. He conflates "ISIS" and the "Syrian Opposition". He claims Cruz is a 'charlatan' based on this confusion.

There is zero intellectual dishonesty these three positions:

The President should not lay down "red lines" and not mean it.
We have no true partner among the various anti-Assad forces stumbling around Syria. It would be foolish to arm any of them, they are not trust worthy.
ISIS is too big a threat to ignore, and we need to do something about them.

In terms of the last point on the threat of ISIS - presumably "do something" does not meaning arming some other faction in Iraq. That was a stupid idea in Syria, it's the same one Rand was (admittedly not very artfully) making fun of in his comments to Scarborough.

The Hillary / McCain / Obama / Hawkish position of arming the Syrian rebels to help defeat Assad *did* result in a spectacular up-arming of ISIS, as group after group that had received US munitions and materials either fell to the them, or turned sides and joined them.

And, we'd have to add the Iraqi Army as the biggest failed local ally in the fight against ISIS, and the one who provided them the most captured USA munitions and equipment. Given this, and the IA (Iraqi Army) alignment with Iran we'd even have to think carefully about how much we try to use them to defeat ISIS in my opinion.

So, Cruz was right. The "support the Syrian opposition" was a very stupid policy, we can now look back and seen that. (Saying US support of Syrian rebels "created" ISIS as Rand did, is an overstatement. But it sure helped them arm up.)

There is another logic problem, at the heart of Milbank's piece. He claims these two positions are hypocritical:

Cruz telling Obama the he should not draw red-lines unless he has the will and means to enforce them.
Cruz leading the Congressional opposition to bombing Syria's ruling Assad regime, because they used chemical weapons.

Ted Cruz, as a Senator of opposition party is under no moral or political obligation to help Obama make his petty threats come true. Obama long ago forfeited the right to expect the Congress to back him on foreign policy. His recklessness, disregard of the Congress as a whole, flaunting of the separation of powers, and even rude dismissive attitude towards the Republican rank-and-file can not be forgotten or forgiven.

Cruz is working right in the middle of the mainstream of GOP thought when he presents these two ideas, which are in fact complimentary:

Obama: you are an idiot. Quit making threats you have no ability or intention to back up just to sound tough.
Obama: you are an idiot. If we kill off Assad the ISIS flag will be flying over Damascus in week.

One would hope that even Obama can't possibly be so stupid as to think that removing or further degrading Assad when ISIS is the biggest and strongest opposition in the region is a good idea. War is tough stuff, sometimes you have to overlook or even work with a bad regime to get to a worse one. The USA aligned with Stalin to defeat Hitler in WW2.

Cruz merely points out the obvious: now is not the time to depose Assad with bombs.

WaPo readers have long known Dana Milbank is that stupid. We must now add Rep. Adam Kinzinger to our list of not-very-bright DC opinion makers. Apparently he can't think one move ahead in checkers, else he would not have supported bombing Assad.

All in all, despite the author's attempt to defame Ted, it's one of the best pro-Cruz pieces I've read this month.

Not sure it makes up for his support of TPP and support for giving fast-track negotiating authority to Obama, but it does show that Cruz is thoughtful and continues to go his own way on foreign policy, avoiding the failures of the extremists on either side of him.