Cruz: I don't stand with Rand on foreign policy

[mystery-ak]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/?hp=

Cruz: I don't stand with Rand on foreign policy
By KEVIN ROBILLARD |
3/9/14 10:53 AM EDT

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz says he disagrees with his tea party compatriot Rand Paul's foreign policy views.

The two would-be 2016 Republican presidential contenders have divided over how to best handle Russia's invasion of Crimea. Both were scheduled to appear on ABC's "This Week" to discuss foreign policy, but ABC correspondent Jon Karl said Paul backed out "at the last minute."

"I'm a big fan of Rand Paul," Cruz said in an interview aired Sunday." "We are good friends. I don't agree with him on foreign policy. U.S. leadership is critical in the world. I agree we should be reluctant to deploy military force aboard, but there's a vital role, just as Ronald Reagan did. When Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an Evil Empire, when he stood in front of the Brandenburg Gate and said 'Tear down this wall.' Those words changed the course of history. The United States has a responsibility to defend our values."

[xyno]

This little snippet does not define the contrast.  There's gotta be more.

[MBB1984]

No, there was no contrast, but it will be explained in detail, I am sure in the debates.  Here's what we know:  Both are clearly not neocons.  Rand is about as far from being a neocon as one can run.  Rand is more in the libertarian/isolationist mindset of foreign policy.  Cruz, as an evangelical Christian, most likely prefers a strong role concerning and supporting Israel in the Middle East.     Paul will most likely agree and support reduced defense spending.  Cruz, most likely will be less agreeable to defense cuts, at least in regards to supporting Israel. 

Look for Cruz to soon distinguish himself from Paul as a strong supporter and ally of Israel.  He will try to galvanize the support of the evangelical community and social Conservatives against Paul and his libertarian ideology.   

[katzenjammer]

No, there was no contrast, but it will be explained in detail, I am sure in the debates.  Here's what we know:  Both are clearly not neocons.  Rand is about as far from being a neocon as one can run.  Rand is more in the libertarian/isolationist mindset of foreign policy.  Cruz, as an evangelical Christian, most likely prefers a strong role concerning and supporting Israel in the Middle East.     Paul will most likely agree and support reduced defense spending.  Cruz, most likely will be less agreeable to defense cuts, at least in regards to supporting Israel. 

Look for Cruz to soon distinguish himself from Paul as a strong supporter and ally of Israel.  He will try to galvanize the support of the evangelical community and social Conservatives against Paul and his libertarian ideology.

Yes, you've touched on the main issues.  There are many subtleties around this whole area.  Most libertarians prefer the term "non-interventionist" to isolationist (and depending on how you see things, you may call it a distinction without difference).  Paul's father had a very "controversial" view on Israel, in short he viewed it as a problem for them to be dependent on the US for their existence.  And also pointed out that we had been funding their enemies in the region at the same or greater levels for some time.  Holders of the libertarian non-interventionist view thought it was well reasoned, others called him anti-Jew over it.  I have not heard Rand Pau'ls views on Israel, I suspect that he won't be as forthright as his father in explaining things and will try to avoid the attendant controversy.

(The Pauls are also evangelical Christians, I suspect that Rand may try to emphasize that more in the coming months.)

[Rapunzel]

Pretty much the main thing nagging me 're Paul is his father's comments on foreign policy ringing in my ears.

[truth_seeker]

I believe if presented a fair poll question, American voters, Republican voters, Independent voters would support the Rand Paul positilon over the Ted Cruz position.

If the proposition is less war, some war weary democrats would switch and support a less interventionist candidate.

Rand Paul could win a general election but Ted Cruz could not.

[olde north church]

You don't have to be a hawk to support a strong defense, just have your eyes open to the world we live in.  To not take care of national security is not only wrong, it's irresponsible.

[truth_seeker]

You don't have to be a hawk to support a strong defense, just have your eyes open to the world we live in.  To not take care of national security is not only wrong, it's irresponsible.

Which Republican President in post-WWII has failed to keep the military at adequate readiness levels?

[xyno]

Pretty much the main thing nagging me 're Paul is his father's comments on foreign policy ringing in my ears.

Actually, that troubles me as well.  How far from the tree did he fall?

[Rapunzel]

Actually, that troubles me as well.  How far from the tree did he fall?

It will take a lot of soul-searching, I watched an interview with Ron Paul this week on Cavuto, he has not softened his anti-Israel position in the least. 

[Howie66]

No, there was no contrast, but it will be explained in detail, I am sure in the debates.  Here's what we know:  Both are clearly not neocons.  Rand is about as far from being a neocon as one can run.  Rand is more in the libertarian/isolationist mindset of foreign policy.  Cruz, as an evangelical Christian, most likely prefers a strong role concerning and supporting Israel in the Middle East.     Paul will most likely agree and support reduced defense spending.  Cruz, most likely will be less agreeable to defense cuts, at least in regards to supporting Israel. 

Look for Cruz to soon distinguish himself from Paul as a strong supporter and ally of Israel.  He will try to galvanize the support of the evangelical community and social Conservatives against Paul and his libertarian ideology.

Well stated.

[Howie66]

You don't have to be a hawk to support a strong defense, just have your eyes open to the world we live in.  To not take care of national security is not only wrong, it's irresponsible.

The number one responsibility of the federal government IS National Security.

Nobody wants to go to war absent a very good reason.

However, IF we are going to take that step, then do so with the goal of winning. And make no mistake about it, winning a war means destroying the Enemy's ability and will to continue the fight. Nothing short of that is acceptable.

[DCPatriot]

The number one responsibility of the federal government IS National Security.

Nobody wants to go to war absent a very good reason.

However, IF we are going to take that step, then do so with the goal of winning. And make no mistake about it, winning a war means destroying the Enemy's ability and will to continue the fight. Nothing short of that is acceptable.

Unfortunately for many...the current Administration is the very antithesis of a person willing to embrace your ideology in conducting war.

They'd only use that concept against the American Right.

[truth_seeker]

However, IF we are going to take that step, then do so with the goal of winning. And make no mistake about it, winning a war means destroying the Enemy's ability and will to continue the fight. Nothing short of that is acceptable.

Yet since WWII we have been engaged in conflict after conflict which does NOT reach your threshold criteria for victory.

Instead they resulted in permanent standoffs, with great costs.

What was Eisenhower warning about regarding the "Military Industrial Complex?"

Nearly 70 years after WWII, Europe's economy equals our own, in dollar terms. Their population equals our own. Why do we have so many troops there?

Korea. Vietnam. Iraq I, Iraq II and Afghanistan. Not one of those examples resulted in a decisive permanent military victory.

Why wipe out the enemy when you can have an entire career on the golf courses of the continents?

[Howie66]

Unfortunately for many...the current Administration is the very antithesis of a person willing to embrace your ideology in conducting war.

They'd only use that concept against the American Right.

That's one can of worms that they really do not want to open.

[Howie66]

Yet since WWII we have been engaged in conflict after conflict which does NOT reach your threshold criteria for victory.

Instead they resulted in permanent standoffs, with great costs.

What was Eisenhower warning about regarding the "Military Industrial Complex?"

Nearly 70 years after WWII, Europe's economy equals our own, in dollar terms. Their population equals our own. Why do we have so many troops there?

Korea. Vietnam. Iraq I, Iraq II and Afghanistan. Not one of those examples resulted in a decisive permanent military victory.

Why wipe out the enemy when you can have an entire career on the golf courses of the continents?

I completely agree with what you said.

For the past 70 years, Europe has, by and large, spent approximately 1% of GDP toward their own defense, "allowing" Uncle Sugar to take up their slack. That is exactly why we have so many of our troops there.

I have no problem at all in scaling back our presence in Europe and letting them take up that slack.

As to the fact that we have not finished the deal since WWll, I can only point to the fact that our country has no taste for sealing the deal, evidently. We need to be more judicious in our thinking about where and when we will become involved in foreign disputes.

At the same time, I believe that we need to secure our borders and significantly cut back on our foreign aid largess.

Just remember this: In Vietnam, we never lost a single battle. Vietnam (and every one of our troops who served and/or died there) was betrayed by the US Media and by Congress. Pretty much the same thing with Iraq and Afghanistan.

[olde north church]

I completely agree with what you said.

For the past 70 years, Europe has, by and large, spent approximately 1% of GDP toward their own defense, "allowing" Uncle Sugar to take up their slack. That is exactly why we have so many of our troops there.

I have no problem at all in scaling back our presence in Europe and letting them take up that slack.

As to the fact that we have not finished the deal since WWll, I can only point to the fact that our country has no taste for sealing the deal, evidently. We need to be more judicious in our thinking about where and when we will become involved in foreign disputes.

At the same time, I believe that we need to secure our borders and significantly cut back on our foreign aid largess.

Just remember this: In Vietnam, we never lost a single battle. Vietnam (and every one of our troops who served and/or died there) was betrayed by the US Media and by Congress. Pretty much the same thing with Iraq and Afghanistan.

It's a bit late for Europe to "stand on it's own" after America has pissed away so much blood and treasure to defend.  I think Japan is a different story.