Cruz blasts "neo-cons" like Rubio for supporting regime change


Cruz Excoriates Rubio on Foreign Policy, Links Him to Clinton - Bloomberg Politics

“Senator Rubio emphatically supported Hillary Clinton in toppling [Muammar] Qaddafi in Libya. I think that made no sense,” Cruz told Bloomberg Politics in a wide-ranging and exclusive interview during a campaign swing through Iowa. He argued that the 2011 bombings that toppled the Libyan leader didn’t help the fight against terrorists. “Qaddafi was a bad man, he had a horrible human rights record. And yet … he had become a significant ally in fighting radical Islamic terrorism.”
“The terrorist attack that occurred in Benghazi was a direct result of that massive foreign policy blunder,” Cruz said during a drive eastward from a town-hall event near Iowa City to another in the town of Clinton.

“If you look at President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and for that matter some of the more aggressive Washington neo-cons, they have consistently mis-perceived the threat of radical Islamic terrorism and have advocated military adventurism that has had the effect of benefiting radical Islamic terrorists,” he said.

On Syria, Cruz inveighed against Rubio and Clinton, Obama’s former secretary of state, for supporting a no-fly zone and arming “the so-called moderate rebels.” “I think none of that makes any sense. In my view, we have no dog in the fight of the Syrian civil war,” he said, arguing that Rubio and Clinton “are repeating the very same mistakes they made in Libya. They’ve demonstrated they’ve learned nothing.”“The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend,” Cruz said. “If the Obama administration and the Washington neo-cons succeed in toppling [Bashar al-] Assad, Syria will be handed over to radical Islamic terrorists. ISIS will rule Syria.”
As another example, he said the Obama administration’s support for overthrowing Egyptian leader Hosni Mubaraki—a dictator opposed by his people but longstanding U.S. ally—led to the Muslim Brotherhood government, which fell in 2013.
Cruz said his decision-making test on military action would be about whether there’s a “real threat” to American security. On foreign policy, he said he’ll employ a simple test: “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.”

Rand Paul (and his father before him), of course, has been saying this for years. Meddling in the affairs of others nations is a fools errand and has unintended consequences. Toppling secular dictators has a track record of failure. I applaud Cruz for taking the right position though.

Looks like there is a developing international consensus as well:

Putin: Do you realize what you have done?

What Benjamin Netanyahu Said About Syria Might Surprise You

UKIP leader Nigel Farage condemns Tony Blair’s support for further Western intervention in the Middle East - UKIP


Trump/Cruz 16 or Cruz/Gowdy 16


Here we go again .


Well he may be right but Obama’s anti-war leadership doesn’t seem to be working either.


Default Candidate list is very short in GOP but not as short as Democrats …


It’s not as simple as being pro-war or anti-war, but who and how you are fighting.


Fighting Gun Grabbers & the Open Border Amnesty Pro Refugee candidates is an easy call


That is true but there is plenty of disagreement among good intelligent folks about that. Rubio’s hawkishness has bothered me and I have been sick of American blood and treasure being wasted in the middle east but from what I remember we were at war nowhere in the middle east when we were attacked. I don’t think ISIS or Al Qaeda give a damn about our war policy and they will attack us when they can so there’s not much left to do but try to annihilate them.


The problem with terrorism is that you are not just fighting people. It is and idea that you are fighting and you cannot kill an idea with bullets and bombs. The terrorist do not care what we do. We could announce that we are leaving the ME today and will never set foot there again. It doesn’t matter, we are the Evil Satan and we must be destroyed. They will spread that idea to other who are easily mislead and those that are in desperate need of food to feed their families due to the chaos that they themselves cause. We cannot win in the ME. The best we can do is minimize our losses while protecting our assets.


I know there’s one thing I like about Obama. He’s willing to send the drones after them. It’s the least we can do.


In this thread, I was referring to the idea that we can spread democracy to the Middle East. The truth is, if it doesn’t come about organically (like it did in Iran before we put that to a stop), then they probably need a secular dictator to keep the radicals in line. Every time we have forced out a secular dictator, we have widened the battlefield. And we apparently care more about about taking out Assad in Syria than preventing the spread of radical Islam. Now, I am not saying we should support secular dictators, because that is also bad, as I will explain in a minute.

Rubio buys into the childish nonsense that “they attack us because we are free” and that if “American leadership” (translation: war) is not present there will be chaos.

They, meaning groups like Al Qaeda, have attacked us because we have supported “apostate” regimes in the Middle East. They attacked us because we put bases and sanctions and no-fly zones in the Middle East. And they attacked us because we support Israel. There are other reasons, all relating to us being over there. There IS a strong religious component and narrative at play, as much of this is seen as an affront to Islam, but for some reason it surprises people that others do not like it when we arrogantly intervene in their affairs.

Does that mean we have to appease every demand? No, but we should certainly not kick the hornets nest, especially when it is not necessary of beneficial. I would continue supporting Israel. I would make sure trade routes stay open. But I would not stick my nose where it doesn’t belong. Al Qaeda was not justified in attacking us on 9/11, which is different from saying they did not have motivation.

Also, we have to stop acting surprised that whenever we drop a bomb in a neighborhood half the people there take up arms against us. We have to stop acting surprised that people don’t want the a foreign power to occupy their country for a decade, or that they don’t want a proxy government ruling over them. Our policies have been driving people to terrorist organizations because they want to defend and avenge their families and countries. Kill a terrorist, create a terrorist. Ultimately, we have to change our strategy so that we can change that equation. I don’t advocate doing nothing, I advocate we stop doing what is hurting us.

Sorry for making this long, but I want to touch on ISIS. ISIS is very different from Al Qaeda. They employ terrorist tactics but are not a terrorist group as we know them. They are establishing a state, a caliphate. As such, they will have to be defeated conventionally, and I am for it. And we could do it without reinvading Iraq or continuing current failed policy. Let Russia and Assad have at it. Arm the Kurds. Threaten Turkey and Saudi princes to cease with their undermining efforts. And if that doesn’t do it, use our oil leverage to create an Arab boots on the ground coalition.


I do not agree. There is much that can be done, if we are willing to do it.
The problems we face, in the Middle East and elsewhere abroad, is our rules of engagement. We try too hard to minimize civilian casualties, so the terrorists use human shields, to deter us from attacking them.
This is, for lack of a better analogy, a Chess Game. They have essentially put us in “Check” and Obozo, Bush, Clintonista, and GHWBush, all fell for it. So have England, France, etc.
The only way to win:

  1. Warn all civilians that attacks are coming, and we will not be deterred by human shields.
  2. Deploy troops, and equipment to the areas we intend to attack.
  3. Saturate the intended area and bomb them into the stone age.
  4. “Mop up”.
  5. Leave humanitarian aid, and people to distribute the aid.
  6. Pull back, and stage the next offensive.
  7. Each time ISIS or others come out of the shadows, repeat.
  8. Each time, make sure we hit a valued shrine or mosque. This reminds them WHY they are hurting.
  9. Apologize for nothing. Warn extensively.
  10. Rinse and repeat.

This is all they understand.


How about when you go to war, you fight to win. You don’t pull out your forces before the region is stabilized.

That alone would have prevented the current turd bowl we have.

As for Cruz, he’s still the best of this bunch. However I am disappointed to see him using the bull crap neocon line of bs. You want to end credibility, drop this term into a situation.

I am not for letting Russia have anything. Assad, sure, he was an ally of ours, while admittedly not an ideal one. I’d prefer we don’t arm anyone but ourselves.


And all we will accomplish is a never ending bloodbath. The people of the ME area very religious people with a very rigid culture. Our problem is we do not understand this. We kill their family wrongly(whether or not it is wrong to us is irrelevant), their culture demands revenge for the unjust slaying. They are a people stuck in the past both religiously and culturally. I am not saying their way is wrong but that what was right in the past, no longer is acceptable now. The only way to “win” in the ME is to fight all the ME because that is what your solution will lead to, genocide. If I had a time machine I would go back and advise every president to stay out of Muslim affairs. Buy their oil and let them tear each other apart. There is no reason we should get mixed up in religious crusades.


This is why I advocated letting the military, not politicians, determine war policy. Administrations change and with that policy changes. The chaos in the ME is the result of politicians who know nothing of war. Feel-good liberals like Obama are incapable of understanding the damage their bleeding heart actions can cause.


Not so. Muslim will to fight can be broken just as any other. You show them an absolute impending doom, and they will lay down their arms and submit.

They have done this very recently. Think of the last invasion of Iraq. What you just said was almost exactly what all of the “No war” crowd was saying.

What happened when we went in? The oh so valiant Republican Guard laid down and begged for mercy.


I agree with fighting to win. Taking out these secular dictators, when we want to, is easy. The issue is what comes after. Yes, pulling out of Iraq enabled ISIS to go come in. But the existing plan was not going to work. Those who said Iraq needed to be split up three ways were correct. The Shias, Sunnis, and Kurds will not live democratically under one roof. When ISIS first came into Iraq in their pickup trucks, the U.S.-armed Iraqi army, which had vastly superior numbers, ran away and abandoned all of their superior equipment. There was absolutely nothing holding Iraq together.

I have never encountered more undue animosity to the term “neocon” than on this forum. It is not code for Jews, it is shorthand for neoconservative, an academically recognized worldview and foreign policy philosophy.

If the choice is Russia or the U.S. occupying Syria, I would let Russia. They don’t want to though-they just want a sphere of influence and keep Assad in power. Fine, it doesn’t hurt us. What I meant in that comment, though, is that we should let Russia and Assad go scorched earth on the rebels and Islamists.

We sent tons of arms to the “Syrian rebels” only for them to fall in the hands of their buddies, ISIS and al-Nusra (al Qaeda in Syria). Therefore, I am normally not a fan of arming people, but the Kurds are people we can absolutely trust and have a real stake in the fight.


I don’t know of any evidence that the military would handle war policy better than the civilians. To me they seem as confused as anyone until you give them the orders to go.


When the term “neocon” is used, it almost exclusively by either leftists, or Ron Paul folks in an effort to discredit a position without using substance. It’s like saying “racist.”

Two more things:
1: Pulling out our forces and relying entirely on the newly rebuilt Iraqi forces was destined to fail, and was predicted by nearly the entire US Military command (CENTCOM in particular), Rumsfeld, his successor, and GWB.
2: The Kurds are ok, but the Israeli’s are not? Or are both?

I have no reason to not support splitting Iraq, but it may not have been needed had we stayed with the needed numbers.


Are you telling me the people we have in charge of the Military, trained and well versed in the ways of war, do not know how to fight a war without lawyers, people who no nothing of war or warfare tactics, telling them what to do?