Excerpt from a recent correspondence that I have ongoing, discussing excerpts of a Ted Cruz speech:
(Text from Senator Cruz' speech in
blue.)
Politicians who had been associated with this brand of foreign policy include my late colleague Senator John McCain and current colleagues like Marco Rubio and Tom Cotton.
My view has been described as that of a noninterventionist hawk. Now, what does that mean? What it means is that I believe the overarching objective of U.S. foreign policy, the touchstone for any military involvement, should be defending the vital national security interests of the United States.Just a couple of comments.... he is correct, Rubio and Cotton are indeed current versions of McCain..... both are despicable curs.
So, here is the crux of a lot of thought and reflection.... just what are the "vital national security interests of the United States?" We all, politicians and the citizenry, tend to use this phrase in a manner that suggests that there is some universal and all encompassing definition! There isn't. And unfortunately for us, this phrase has been used to justify unspeakable horrors against ALL of us.... the citizens of this great nation, and much of the rest of the world!!
Now, I am not accusing Cruz of anything nefarious here.... just want to point out that that phrase, needs to be very carefully dissected, analyzed, placed into context, and validated, almost every time it is used in a substantive manner.
But on the other side, a question that I asked repeatedly both in public briefings and in classified briefings is, if a military strike is successful, if Assad is toppled - and let me be clear. Assad is a monster and a butcher who has murdered hundreds of thousands of his own citizens. I have no illusions about what kind of man Bashar Assad is.
And at each of those briefings, I couldn't get a coherent answer from the administration, how you prevent chemical weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists who would use them, who would want to use them both against Americans and our allies - an unequivocally worse situation than the status quo.
When the administration couldn't answer that question, I came out publicly opposing military intervention in Syria. In that - agreed with me on that policy issue was Rand Paul, although for very different reasons. Likewise, in Libya, the Obama administration led a coalition of nations to topple Gadhafi - Gadhafi, like Assad, a bad, bad man with a horrible human rights record. And yet we topple Gadhafi, creating a vacuum into which stepped warlords, radical Islamic warlords that made Libya, by any measure, more dangerous and a greater threat to U.S. national security interests.
OK, a lot to unpack here.... I am glad that Cruz was against the interventions in both Syria and Libya.... though for somewhat different reasons than I hold....
Syria: two main things:
1. Assad being a "monster and butcher" is more recent Western propaganda than fact.... but more importantly,
2. What goes on in Syria is the business of the Syrian people.... I don't now believe in, nor support, the whole "Responsibility to Protect (R2P)" (
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/about-responsibility-to-protect.shtml) doctrine.... I am sure that you have heard of it.... a Soros-constructed doctrine willed into existence by good old Samantha Power.... All that it is, and ever was, is a ginned up justification for the spread of globalism buttressed by support ginned up at a purely emotional level.... (Recall also that it was originally named "
Right to Protect," when that just didn't get enough traction, it was converted to "
Responsibility!!!"
Look, either one believes in national sovereignty, or one doesn't..... it isn't a "flexible" concept in which "we" get to choose which nation's sovereignty we will respect, and which nation's sovereignty we won't.....
Libya: much the same....
While Cruz is correct that the toppling of these leaders led directly into chaos resulting from the power vacuum, my point is that it would have been wrong even if our approved "replacements" were in place..... how many times in our history have we seen the folly (and resultant destruction that follows) from that course of action? Think Persia and the Shah..... think of the Satellite Wars....
Now if you recall...... R2P came about just before these interventions.... convenient, no? What were they up to? In short (very short) it was part of the path to create the caliphate.... as part of the path to creating chaos in a significant part of the globe, and drawing in the US (and other Western "allies") into regional conflict, and ultimately much more.... (Shudder at the thought of HRC winning in 2016.) Oh, and never forget the "side benefit" of hundreds of billions of dollars (repayable by future generations) that gets into the hands of certain actors.... to "defend" against this!!
And then there is, of course, Iraq. Saddam Hussein was yet another monster, and yet, in hindsight, it is hard to dispute that toppling that strongman opened the door for ISIS, opened the door for radical Islamic terrorists who had as an even greater objective of carrying out acts of terrorism and murder targeting American citizens. In all of those situations, I believed U.S. military force and the use of military force did not further our national security interests. So what is the counterpoint to that?
Kudos to Cruz for speaking the truth about that.... I am sickened by those that would continue to attempt to justify the Iraq intervention....
(Question: do you believe this was just an inadvertent "blunder?")
And the counterpoint to that I would point to is Iran. I believe the threat of a nuclear Iran poses the single greatest national security threat to the United States of America. The Ayatollah Khomenei, when he chants death to America, when he chants death to Israel, I believe it. I don't believe that is mere empty rhetoric, but rather it is a radical religious commitment, a zealotry, that, if backed by nuclear weapons, could result in the annihilation of millions. I believe we should use every tool we have to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Now, what does that mean? That means diplomatic tools. That means economic tools. That means sanctions. And that means, yes, military force if necessary.
Some time recently, a reporter asked me a question that he thought was a gotcha question, which is he said, would you be willing to use military force against Iran? I said, absolutely. That's a gotcha question. That one is easily - if Iran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons, we should not hesitate to use military force to prevent them from doing so. Now, let me be very clear. When I talk about that potential, I mean bombing their nuclear facilities into absolute rubble. I have zero desire to see an invading ground force that tries to turn Iran into a democratic utopia. If our objective is to turn Iran into Switzerland, that in all likelihood will prove a mirage - an impossible objective. If our objective is to stop a radical theocrat from acquiring weapons to be used, potentially, to murder millions of Americans or millions of our allies, that is an achievable and direct military outcome.
Here is where it gets a bit dicey for me..... in Iran, we introduce the complication of
theocracy (totally unlike Syria & Libya).... theocracy of an insanely radical flavor.... so, it seems that we need to be "practical" here..... yet for me, none of what I said above about national sovereignty is fundamentally different... so what to do?
In my mind (and tell me where I am going wrong) I need to do two things. Number one, I have to recognize that the reason that the Ayyatollahs are in control is because of us, and our prior intervention (thanks Jimmy!! but again, not an accidental blunder by any means).... so nutty as it may sound, I can actually justify further intervention to rectify the "mistake" of the prior one....
Yet how shall this be done? My preference in much of life is always to seek the
most organic solutions possible.... we should have been assisting the people of Iran (whom are in the whole, no enemies of ours) to affect the needed changes.... that "assistance" should have taken many forms.... are we too late? perhaps, but just recently so.... maybe we aren't..... too late.... it would take a lot of objective (unfiltered) evidence (that I will surely never see) to convince me that we are indeed too late..... for this type of organic solution....
Still an open issue for me, would love to know what others think....
The latter, I believe, are the most important words uttered by any leader in modern times. If any of you come to my office here in D.C., the dominant feature is an enormous painting - larger than this backdrop - of President Reagan standing before the Brandenburg Gate and, above him, the words, tear down this wall, in German in the style of the graffiti. And many don't know the backstory of that speech. Three times the State Department edited those words out of the speech, and three times President Reagan handwrote them back in. And the State Department argued to him, Mr. President, you don't understand. You can't say this. This is too belligerent. This is too provocative. This is too hostile. And Mr. President - this is our kicker - this is too unrealistic. It will never, ever, ever happen. The Berlin Wall will stand for all eternity. And Reagan, with a twinkle in his eye, he said, you don't understand. This is the whole point of the speech.
When President Reagan gave those remarks, within less than three years, the Berlin Wall was torn to the ground. And if you value peace, if you value liberty, that moment should stand as a pivotal and transformational fork in the road because it wasn't American tanks that knocked down that Berlin Wall. It wasn't Minuteman missiles that bombed the wall to the ground. It was instead the incredible battering ram of truth. It was the battering ram of ideas. And because President Reagan understood the moral clarity, the bully pulpit of the presidency, because he spoke without fear and called out evil by its name, we won the Cold War without firing a shot.Agree totally with Cruz here.... a joy to read this.... I believe that Trump is attempting to use his own personal flavor of this approach on many fronts.... I pray that he succeeds.... Another important point is his calling out of the State Department.... for decades (some date it to the Wilson administration) it has been in Star Wars terms, "a more wretched hive of scum and villainy" unlike any other...
Look. I understand that free and independent Kurdistan drives the Iraqis crazy. It drives the Turks crazy, doesn't thrill the Iranians. Going back to the principle I laid out, our focus on foreign policy should be focused directly on protecting U.S. national security. The Kurds have bled and fought and died to stand with America. And I think it is right not because we're in the business of promoting democratic utopias but because our objective should be keeping America safe and standing with those allies who fight with us against our enemies that we should support a free and independent Kurdistan. And I hope that we see that.
While I agree in theory..... the devil is in the details as to how this is accomplished.... again I argue for the "organic" approach..... a people that fights for their independence and territory are more apt to guard and cherish it in the long run..... (at least for several generations!)..... we can't be involved in "carving up" the territory and creating a nation....
Back at the end of WWI when the French & British divyed up the land of the Ottoman Empire to create the mess that is there now (Sykes-Picot Agreement) it was a total screw up that exists to this day.... let's not make the same mistake again.....
===
Here is the link (button) to download the PDF of the subject Cruz speech, if you are interested in reading it:
https://www.hudson.org/research/15291-transcript-interventionism-vs-isolationism-a-conversation-with-u-s-sen-ted-cruz@Bigun @Cyber Liberty @Sanguine @skeeter @Right_in_Virginia