Tag Archives: Foreign Policy

Ted Cruz explained why regime change makes us worse off

In a refreshing moment, a candidate other than Rand Paul gave a great non-interventionist speech during Thursday’s GOP Debate in Las Vegas.

That candidate was Ted Cruz, who criticized the failed strategy of regime change and took a shot at Woodrow Wilson, the foreign policy father of all things high-minded yet impractical.

Wolf Blitzer asked Senator Cruz about US policies of regime change to spread democracy, questioning if he would prefer to preserve dictatorships instead. Recently, Cruz had argued that the world would have been safer with Saddam Hussein still in power.

Cruz drew upon recent history. The Obama administration toppled Gaddafi in Libya, he answered, “because they wanted to promote democracy. A number of Republicans supported them. The result of that — and we were told then that there were these moderate rebels that would take over. Well, the result is, Libya is now a terrorist war zone run by jihadists.”

Read the rest on Rare here.

Why the United States Should Withdraw from NATO

With the recent news that Turkey had downed a Russian warplane for supposed airspace violations, the international community has been in an uproar.

While the Russian and Turkish accounts of what exactly transpired are at odds, there is no doubt that the Turkish government shot down the Russian plane for what — by their own account — couldn’t have been more than a 17 second airspace violation.

Speculation abounds as to why Turkey did this, especially considering that Turkey has violated Greek airspace over 1,400 times this year alone. One possible idea is that this was in retaliation for Russian bombardment of Turkmen rebels who have ethnic ties to Turkey.

Whatever the case, the incident has prompted numerous people, including those who rarely pay attention to international politics, to pause in concern and contemplate the terrible disaster that this could provoke, if tensions spiral out of control. The worse case being a conflict between the United States and fellow nuclear armed state, Russia.

Read the rest on the PanAm Post here.

Hillary ran for hawk-in-chief last night

Americans might have thought they were listening to John McCain or Lindsey Graham during last night’s Democratic debate.

Because Hillary Clinton unquestionably sounded like she was running for hawk-in-chief. On nearly every foreign policy question, Clinton’s answers seemed interchangeable with the most neoconservative-friendly candidates running in the Republican primary.

Hillary made a point of emphatically defending the war in Libya, which has left the country an embattled, smoldering ruin. She said that “President Obama made the right decision at the time.”

Just like Marco Rubio said in 2011.

Defending the complete fiasco that has become Libya post-intervention, Clinton argued:

“The Libyan people had a free election the first time since 1951. And you know what, they voted for moderates, they voted with the hope of democracy. Because of the Arab Spring, because of a lot of other things, there was turmoil to be followed.”

“Rosy” would be putting Hillary’s version of these events mildly.

Read the rest on Rare here.

Why Rand Paul was right to call Carly Fiorina an isolationist

“Man, are we lucky she wasn’t president during the Cold War.” Those were the words Rand Paul had for Carly Fiorina during his “Situation Room” interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer Tuesday.

Blitzer had asked Paul how he would respond to the Russian build-up in Syria. The Kentucky Senator’s response echoed previous standout lines during the Presidential debates.

“I think the first thing that’s important is to have open lines of communication.” Given recent events, Paul’s answer seems all the more prescient. What was the result of Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter’s thus-far refusal to communicate with his counterpart in Moscow? A climate in which the United States got notice of Russia’s first airstrikes in Syria by way of a three-star general marching into the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and giving a one hour notice to clear any personnel from projected strike zones.

Paul made the abundantly reasonable suggestion that it might be a good idea “to know where everybody is flying and what their goal is.” Paul charged Fiorina with wanting to “diplomatically isolate” the US by refusing to engage with our adversaries.

History justifies the Senator’s caution.

Read the rest on Rare here.

Remembering September 11th: Where We Were, Where We Are, and Where We’re Heading

Today marks the fourteenth anniversary of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. 9/11 has joined Pearl Harbor and the assassination of John F. Kennedy in the ranks of defining generational tragedies. It’s the day that changed America forever.

America responded to the attack by throwing itself into the “War on Terror,” a new type of open-ended war of attrition against spectral abstractions. Fourteen years later, no end is in sight. Unfortunately, the war effort has largely failed. It’s time to face up to it, and adjust to the new reality we have created in the post-9/11 world.

Here at home, domestic surveillance continues to grow in scope and invasiveness, despite having done little to root out terrorism. The main casualty on this front has been American civil liberties and constitutional rights. The USA FREEDOM Act, and a few other measures, have reinforced some of the liberties undermined by the War on Terror. Mostly, however, the thriving and largely unchecked surveillance state has managed to fend off or ignore reforms.

Abroad, America has sent its soldiers to battle phantoms in the shadows with no end goal, or clear definition of victory. Innocents routinely perish as collateral damage of America’s Sisyphean quest to kill al Qaeda’s latest “second in command.” Our foreign adventurism has weakened Iraq, decimated al Qaeda, and sent the Taliban fleeing; but in their wake, new terrorist organizations like ISIS have sprung to fill the void. We have traded one enemy for another.

Read the rest on Townhall here.