Ted Cruz on ISIS, and the split among GOP hawks **UPDATE on Trump**

[Mr. Morden]

Peter Beinart has a good column here on the split between McCain/Graham on the one hand, and Ted Cruz on the other, re: attacking ISIS.  Both want to do it, but McCain and Graham are using Wilsonian arguments in the mold of GW Bush, while Cruz comes at it as a Jacksonian.  Beinart describes Cruz's foreign policy ideology as the "worst of both worlds" between McCain-style uber-hawkishness and Ron Paul-esque non-interventionism:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/09/how-to-defeat-isis-according-to-ted-cruz/380500/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Morden]

Here's a ~3.5 minute discussion of this split on the right, discussed back in 2011:

http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/3105?in=13:03&out=16:38

Basically, the split is over whether there's hope for democracy promotion in the Muslim world.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Here's a ~3.5 minute discussion of this split on the right, discussed back in 2011:

http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/3105?in=13:03&out=16:38

Basically, the split is over whether there's hope for democracy promotion in the Muslim world.

The odds of democracy anytime soon in Syria outside of the Kurdish areas are pretty bleak.

[Likely Voter]

The GOP Debates are going to be fascinating. There will be little to no agreement among these guys on Iraq/Syria/ISIS. And of course ISIS is likely to troll the US elections with videos, beheadings, etc.

[Mr. Morden]

Seriously guys, no one else is going to comment in this thread?  This is an interesting potential fissure in foreign policy among GOP presidential candidates that we could see next year, and you'd all rather talk about whether the 100 year old former lieutenant governor of Guam could be vice president, or whatever?

[politicus]

Seriously guys, no one else is going to comment in this thread?  This is an interesting potential fissure in foreign policy among GOP presidential candidates that we could see next year, and you'd all rather talk about whether the 100 year old former lieutenant governor of Guam could be vice president, or whatever?

I think its because its hard to take Ted Cruz serious as a Presidential contender, so it doesn't seem to matter much what he says. But I agree with the "worst of both worlds" comment. A Cruz-presidency would be terrible (also) on foreign policy.

Can you make the case that this will influence Republican foreign policy with some more likely nominee?

[Mr. Morden]

Can you make the case that this will influence Republican foreign policy with some more likely nominee?

I think the more "mainstream" potential candidates like Christie and Rubio will take something closer to the Bush/McCain line of "optimism" about the Arab world.  They're hawks, but their hawkishness is intertwined with optimism about the prospects for democracy in the Arab world.  It's the more outsider candidates like Cruz in 2016 (and to a certain extent Bachmann in 2012) who tend to be "pessimist" hawks, who support bombing, but with no corresponding effort at organizing alliances with the locals because they basically think all the locals are our enemies, and trying to foster political reconciliation is hopeless.

However, I also think that that "pessimist" take is probably closer to where the GOP base is right now, and so even if you don't think Cruz is going to win the nomination, the mere fact of him making such a critique could push other candidates in his direction.  This is especially likely for candidates who don't really care that much about foreign policy, and are eager to take the political path of least resistance.  (Scott Walker is a possibility here.)

[© tweed]

Here's a ~3.5 minute discussion of this split on the right, discussed back in 2011:

http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/3105?in=13:03&out=16:38

Basically, the split is over whether there's hope for democracy promotion in the Muslim world.

The odds of democracy anytime soon in Syria outside of the Kurdish areas are pretty bleak.

'democracy' means stable US-backed dictatorship that allows for the expatriation of oil profits in exchange for weapons.  Islam Karimov is a great small-d democrat.

[The Mikado]

Here's a ~3.5 minute discussion of this split on the right, discussed back in 2011:

http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/3105?in=13:03&out=16:38

Basically, the split is over whether there's hope for democracy promotion in the Muslim world.

The odds of democracy anytime soon in Syria outside of the Kurdish areas are pretty bleak.

'democracy' means stable US-backed dictatorship that allows for the expatriation of oil profits in exchange for weapons.  Islam Karimov is a great small-d democrat.

Since when was the USA backing Uzbekistan?  I'm under the impression that we cut military aid in 2004.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

It's certainly hard to take Cruz seriously but sometimes I find it hard to take Beinart seriously too.  Why does he think it doesn't make any sense to bomb ISIS if we aren't going to arm the FSA?  It makes sense as a strategy so long as we are trying to limit and degrade ISIS rather than outright destroy them ourselves. Cruz is here making a more radical version of the mistake Obama is, talking about destroying ISIS while not being straight about what that would actually require if it is even plausible.

Cruz's advocacy of military power but suspicion of other nations looks like an approach Walter Russell Mead would call Jacksonian. In that sense I don't think it is anything new even if Cruz makes it look a bit more pandering and harebrained than usual. It is a stance that has widely been popular among the American Right, and stands in contrast to those Neoconservatives who combine both Jacksonian and Wilsonian values.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Seriously guys, no one else is going to comment in this thread?  This is an interesting potential fissure in foreign policy among GOP presidential candidates that we could see next year, and you'd all rather talk about whether the 100 year old former lieutenant governor of Guam could be vice president, or whatever?

This is like TARP. Fissures in both parties.

[Mr. Morden]

Cruz's advocacy of military power but suspicion of other nations looks like an approach Walter Russell Mead would call Jacksonian. In that sense I don't think it is anything new even if Cruz makes it look a bit more pandering and harebrained than usual. It is a stance that has widely been popular among the American Right, and stands in contrast to those Neoconservatives who combine both Jacksonian and Wilsonian values.

Exactly.  Jacksonianism has long been popular on the right, but among actual Republican politicians, it was in hibernation during the Bush presidency, as Wilsonianism was in vogue.  Is Cruz at the bleeding edge of a Jacksonian resurgence?  I guess we'll find out in next year's debates.

[pbrower2a]

Seriously guys, no one else is going to comment in this thread?  This is an interesting potential fissure in foreign policy among GOP presidential candidates that we could see next year, and you'd all rather talk about whether the 100 year old former lieutenant governor of Guam could be vice president, or whatever?

I think its because its hard to take Ted Cruz serious as a Presidential contender, so it doesn't seem to matter much what he says. But I agree with the "worst of both worlds" comment. A Cruz-presidency would be terrible (also) on foreign policy.

Can you make the case that this will influence Republican foreign policy with some more likely nominee?

Ted Cruz is a political joke in the making -- at best the New Jesse Helms and at worst the New Joseph McCarthy.

[© tweed]

Here's a ~3.5 minute discussion of this split on the right, discussed back in 2011:

http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/3105?in=13:03&out=16:38

Basically, the split is over whether there's hope for democracy promotion in the Muslim world.

The odds of democracy anytime soon in Syria outside of the Kurdish areas are pretty bleak.

'democracy' means stable US-backed dictatorship that allows for the expatriation of oil profits in exchange for weapons.  Islam Karimov is a great small-d democrat.

Since when was the USA backing Uzbekistan?  I'm under the impression that we cut military aid in 2004.

Obama lifted the Bush-era restrictions in 2012.  didn't make much news, but why would it?

[Bull Moose Base]

Can you make the case that this will influence Republican foreign policy with some more likely nominee?

I think the more "mainstream" potential candidates like Christie and Rubio will take something closer to the Bush/McCain line of "optimism" about the Arab world.  They're hawks, but their hawkishness is intertwined with optimism about the prospects for democracy in the Arab world.  It's the more outsider candidates like Cruz in 2016 (and to a certain extent Bachmann in 2012) who tend to be "pessimist" hawks, who support bombing, but with no corresponding effort at organizing alliances with the locals because they basically think all the locals are our enemies, and trying to foster political reconciliation is hopeless.

However, I also think that that "pessimist" take is probably closer to where the GOP base is right now, and so even if you don't think Cruz is going to win the nomination, the mere fact of him making such a critique could push other candidates in his direction.  This is especially likely for candidates who don't really care that much about foreign policy, and are eager to take the political path of least resistance.  (Scott Walker is a possibility here.)

The problem with dismissing Cruz because he's an unlikely GOP nominee is that so is everyone else. In any event, I agree Cruz's view here (like most of his views) are in largely in sync with the GOP base and this (like most of his views) will shape the nominee's positions whether or not he's nominated. Paul has already moved toward Cruz's position and, as you suggest above, Walker or Christie also would readily if they needed to.

[Indy Texas]

Someone should ask Mitt Romney how he feels about this and see how many different positions he offers up. At least we know he's not going to "apologize for America."

[bedstuy]

Someone should ask Mitt Romney how he feels about this and see how many different positions he offers up. At least we know he's not going to "apologize for America."

1.  Vague criticism of Obama for being weak.
2.  General agreement with any policy that worked or is seemingly popular, qualified with the assurance that Obama gets no credit.
3.  The world is dangerous, thanks Obama!
4. Benghazi. 

[Mr. Morden]

Santorum has "serious concerns" about arming Syrian rebels:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/219063-santorum-has-serious-concerns-about-arming-syrian-rebels

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Fuzzy Bear]

No one seems to want to be honest about the fact that (A) we don't have a dog in this hunt, and (B) the reason for this is because we have interfered in the internal affairs of this region so much that all sides really don't like us.

[Mr. Morden]

*bump*

This thread is from over a year ago, but now here we are, yes, Cruz was at the bleeding edge of a "Jacksonian resurgence", as I put it.

It's embodied by Trump, Cruz himself, and to a certain extent Carson.  They're all talking in a hawkish way, yet in a "military pessimist" way as Beinart put it--skeptical of the ability of American military power to "fix" any problems in the Middle East--militarism that doesn't entangle the US in the politics of the region.  They want to simply smash our enemies, not create a political solution on the ground, so to speak, and this often puts them in the "support the strongman" position, which see Trump shrug at the continued reign of Assad while Jeb accuses him of playing foreign policy like a board game.

The more conventional establishment candidates, like (Jeb) Bush and Rubio, are in the (George W.) Bush/McCain mold of "We should use American military power to create a political solution to the underlying issues there and make those societies better."

Beinart revisits this topic, re: Trump and Jacksonianism, and ties it into the refugee debate:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/donald-trumps-formula-for-success-in-foreign-policy/417456/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[wolfsblood07]

Ted Cruz makes a lot of sense on this.  He does not want to nation build, but he wants to deal a strong military blow to ISIS without a huge accompanying expenditure of money to spread democracy to parts of the world that don't understand it, don't want it and will never have it.
Pat Buchanan offers excellent insight on this.  He says let's let other countries do most of the fighting.

[mencken]

I have yet to encounter a Republican without a Jacksonian foreign policy mindset in the wild (Of course, I have yet to encounter a Trump supporter either, but they are even more likely to subscribe to this worldview.) The Beltway Republicans must live in a bubble if they think that the Wilsonian drivel actually appeals to anyone aside from their large corporate donors.

[Mr. Morden]

*bump*

We just had a debate that was largely about the Jacksonians vs. Wilsonians on foreign policy, so I will now accept my accolades.

[Torie]

Congratulations Morden. Cruz is as wrong on this given the current situation, as he is on everything else. I really can't stand listening to him. Granted, in interviews he is more tolerable to listen to.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Cruz makes more sense than many on the GOP stage.  His solution isn't ideal, but it's far more sane than the "No Fly Zone" crowd that will lead to direct military confrontation with Russia.

With regard to the debate as a whole:  Most of the GOP is engaged in double-talk about ISIS.  Is ISIS our leading enemy in the World?  They don't act like it is.  They are more afraid of Russia Iran, Assad, Hezbollah, and a "Shia Crescent" in the Middle East, EVEN THOUGH THESE ARE THE FOLKS ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN THE ACTUAL FIGHT AGAINST ISIS.  This is more than a minor inconsistency.  If ISIS is truly our #1 enemy, why wouldn't we be joining with those fighting it?  Specifically, why wouldn't we join the coalition that has already formed against ISIS?  That's a question that begs an answer, and the silence is deafening.

The reason for the silence is that these candidates know that Obama, who gets nothing but criticism on ISIS, has probably handled the situation as well as it could be.  The ultimatums against Assad were a mistake, and support for the Arab Spring, in retrospect, was a mistake, but there is also precedent for America supporting tyrants that later fell and the successor regimes became hostile to America.  Obama, more than many, has played one side against the other in the Middle East to the point where there is something of a deadlock that is better than a lot of outcomes there.  Of course, since Obama is the Devil, these GOP candidates can't admit that, but . . .