Carving Out A Third and Better Way?

[BedellBrave]

Foreign Policy - both R & D seems fixated on two poles - interventionist (either neocon or D's hawkish variant) or isolationist. Is Cruz smart in rejecting both?

Link

"This side of the father-and-son isolationist firm Ron Paul & Son, it's unheard of for a conservative Republican to attack neoconservatives by name. But that is exactly what Texas Sen. and rising presidential candidate Ted Cruz is doing. And he might be tapping into a philosophy of national security reflecting the preference of most Americans.

In a Bloomberg interview over the weekend, Cruz accused his rival for the GOP nomination, Marco Rubio, of "military adventurism," even linking him to Hillary Clinton.

"Senator Rubio emphatically supported Hillary Clinton in toppling (Moammar) Gadhafi in Libya. I think that made no sense," Cruz said, pointing out that Gadhafi "had become a significant ally in fighting radical Islamic terrorism" and that the Benghazi attack "was a direct result of that massive foreign policy blunder."

He accused "the more aggressive Washington neocons" of "benefiting radical Islamic terrorists" and warned that "if the Obama administration and the Washington neocons succeed in toppling (Bashar) Assad, Syria will be handed over to radical Islamic terrorists. ISIS will rule Syria."

A Cruz Doctrine would ask of military action: "How does it keep America safe? If it's keeping America safe, we should do it. If it's making America more vulnerable, we shouldn't do it."

At a recent Iowa town hall, Cruz rejected the choice being between "retreat from the world and be isolationist and leave everyone alone, or we've got to be these crazy neocon-invade-every-country-on-Earth and send our kids to die in the Middle East."

He added: "Most people I know don't agree with either one of those. They think both of those are nuts."

Neoconservative organs are not happy, as seen on both the Wall Street Journal editorial page and in Commentary magazine.

But after wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that should have been won — in fact were won, but took so long that the next president lost them — Americans rightly ask: Why can't the greatest military power in the history of the world win against outmatched adversaries fast?

Instead of nation building, how about a principled realpolitik under which America defeats terrorist regimes with massive force, then swiftly brings the boys home — making it clear We Shall Return if terrorists are replaced with other terrorists. It's hard to argue that a post-Saddam Baath Party wouldn't have been preferable to ISIS.

Cruz may be the only Republican to explore this apparently verboten notion of having the kind of foreign policy every other civilized country in the world has — placing our own interests first."

Or, is this just a naive (or disingenuous) populist pitch?

 

[sturg33]

Foreign Policy - both R & D seems fixated on two poles - interventionist (either neocon or D's hawkish variant) or isolationist. Is Cruz smart in rejecting both?

Link

"This side of the father-and-son isolationist firm Ron Paul & Son, it's unheard of for a conservative Republican to attack neoconservatives by name. But that is exactly what Texas Sen. and rising presidential candidate Ted Cruz is doing. And he might be tapping into a philosophy of national security reflecting the preference of most Americans.

In a Bloomberg interview over the weekend, Cruz accused his rival for the GOP nomination, Marco Rubio, of "military adventurism," even linking him to Hillary Clinton.

"Senator Rubio emphatically supported Hillary Clinton in toppling (Moammar) Gadhafi in Libya. I think that made no sense," Cruz said, pointing out that Gadhafi "had become a significant ally in fighting radical Islamic terrorism" and that the Benghazi attack "was a direct result of that massive foreign policy blunder."

He accused "the more aggressive Washington neocons" of "benefiting radical Islamic terrorists" and warned that "if the Obama administration and the Washington neocons succeed in toppling (Bashar) Assad, Syria will be handed over to radical Islamic terrorists. ISIS will rule Syria."

A Cruz Doctrine would ask of military action: "How does it keep America safe? If it's keeping America safe, we should do it. If it's making America more vulnerable, we shouldn't do it."

At a recent Iowa town hall, Cruz rejected the choice being between "retreat from the world and be isolationist and leave everyone alone, or we've got to be these crazy neocon-invade-every-country-on-Earth and send our kids to die in the Middle East."
He added: "Most people I know don't agree with either one of those. They think both of those are nuts."

Neoconservative organs are not happy, as seen on both the Wall Street Journal editorial page and in Commentary magazine.

But after wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that should have been won — in fact were won, but took so long that the next president lost them — Americans rightly ask: Why can't the greatest military power in the history of the world win against outmatched adversaries fast?

Instead of nation building, how about a principled realpolitik under which America defeats terrorist regimes with massive force, then swiftly brings the boys home — making it clear We Shall Return if terrorists are replaced with other terrorists. It's hard to argue that a post-Saddam Baath Party wouldn't have been preferable to ISIS.

Cruz may be the only Republican to explore this apparently verboten notion of having the kind of foreign policy every other civilized country in the world has — placing our own interests first."

Or, is this just a naive (or disingenuous) populist pitch?

Who is isolationist?

 

[50PoundHead]

There's really nothing new here. Voices as diverse as the Pauls (noted by the author), Colin Powell, Glenn Beck, and me (but no one ever listens to me) predicted all of this with the invasion of Iraq (Beck less so on Iraq, but was skeptical of the Arab Spring and rightfully so). Cruz is an empty vessel on foreign policy and my guess is he's trying to find a way to differentiate himself from Trump's bombast. I agree with much of what he is saying here (but disagree with most everything else he says on other topics), but I think the "we shall return if terrorists are replaced with other terrorists" line is simply a continuance of current policy amped up with a greater possibility of "boots on the ground." Other than the threat of armed intervention, I don't see much of a difference here between what is currently being practiced and what the author seems to be suggesting. It all depends on where you draw the line for intervention.

I agree wholeheartedly with the author that one of the biggest mistakes made during the Iraq War was the banishment of Baath party members from serving in a new Iraqi government.

I think the other problem is that we continue to see this as a nation-state problem when it really isn't. Whoever is in charge anywhere in the Middle East is going to have to deal with non-state actors who have weapons, technology, and know-how. As we are seeing, a group doesn't have to have a functioning government or a firmly-held geographical territory to raise all kinds on unholy havoc. In fact, I'd argue not being saddled with having to defend geographical boundaries is an advantage for ISIS, Al-Queda, and whoever else wants to engage in terrorist tactics.