Rubio and Cruz disagree on declaration of war

[Avatar4321]

Marco Rubio ‘Supportive’ of Congress Issuing Formal Declaration of War Against Islamic State

Apparently the two are disagreeing on whether we should formally declare war on the Islamic state

 

[candycorn]

Curious to see what sacrifices he expects people to make for the war effort.

 

[Moonglow]

So now that Boneher is gone, Congress may do something....??

 

[DarkFury]

I do NOT support boots on the ground in Syria. Also I do NOT support Obama's leadership.

 

[Boss]

Marco Rubio ‘Supportive’ of Congress Issuing Formal Declaration of War Against Islamic State

Apparently the two are disagreeing on whether we should formally declare war on the Islamic state

I don't see any "disagreement" here. I see two philosophical viewpoints which both contend ISIS is an enemy we need to defeat. I agree with Cruz on this but I can see Rubio's point as well... although, what purpose would a formal declaration of war really have? Especially when you have an imperial president who doesn't believe in separation of powers and just does as he damn well pleases without the consent of Congress anyway.

I that respect, Rubio sounds a little naive.

 

[tyroneweaver]

I do NOT support boots on the ground in Syria. Also I do NOT support Obama's leadership.

Pulling out of Syria wouldn't bother me a bit.
Being in Syria really creates a fog of war for Putin being there.
Pulling out would make him own the whole shabang.
But unfortunately jugears thinks asaad needs to be removed. Probably just because Putin wants him in. Let the pissing contest begin.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Marco Rubio ‘Supportive’ of Congress Issuing Formal Declaration of War Against Islamic State"

The notion is idiocy, of course – reckless and irresponsible; illustrating why Rubio has no business being president.

 

[Esmeralda]

Marco Rubio ‘Supportive’ of Congress Issuing Formal Declaration of War Against Islamic State

Apparently the two are disagreeing on whether we should formally declare war on the Islamic state

A declaration of war against the 'Islamic State' is in itself ridiculous. The so-called 'Islamic State' has no official status....it is a bunch of terrorists and nothing more.

 

[amrchaos]

There are geopolitical consequences if we formally declare war. One is that will legitimize the Islamic State. Another is it will provide a concrete road map for terrorists to form a recognizable nation.

On the other hand, it does free our military action in the region since they are no longer observers or advisers.

 

[S.J.]

It's a legitimate disagreement but it shows Cruz is the wiser of the two and more qualified to be President.

 

[candycorn]

It's a legitimate disagreement but it shows Cruz is the wiser of the two and more qualified to be President.

More qualified than Marco? Thats not saying much.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Marco Rubio ‘Supportive’ of Congress Issuing Formal Declaration of War Against Islamic State

Apparently the two are disagreeing on whether we should formally declare war on the Islamic state

Can we? Isn't 'war' a nation vs nation thing? Has there ever been a formal declaration of war against a non-nation?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Skimming wiki, I don't think we can formally declare war against a terrorist group. Nor is it actually necessary.

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seems more what'd be involved.

 

[candycorn]

Skimming wiki, I don't think we can formally declare war against a terrorist group. Nor is it actually necessary.

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seems more what'd be involved.

Well, outside of the symbolism, there doesn't seem to be much.

Which is why I say that the only thing it would mean is that Mr. Rubio would be "phrasing" it differently for the American people. I mean, what are we going to do with a DOW that we are doing without a DOW militarily....nuke a highway between Syria and Bagdhad?

The only difference the DOW makes is what the governemnt can do domestically:

From Wikipedia:

A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation and another. The document Declarations of War and Authorizations for the Use of Military Force: Historical Background and Legal Implications gives an extensive listing and summary of statutes which are automatically engaged upon the US declaring war.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is almost no upside to declaring a war other than giving the president and the Congress power to stamp out dissidence and put political enemies in jail.

 

[imawhosure]

Declaring war would be a terrible idea! To do so, would mean to claim victory, we would have to have a capitulation by the enemy. Without the enemy in this case being a nation state, we could not claim victory because we occupied their nation state, or force them to publicly capitulate. That would mean no matter what, we would lose as long as 1 Isis member remained.

 

[American_Jihad]

Rubio, Cruz and US Global Leadership
For the first time in a decade, Americans are beginning to think seriously about foreign policy. But are they too late?
December 18, 2015
Caroline Glick

...

And while there were nine candidates on the stage, there were only two participants in this critical discussion.

Sens. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz faced off after weeks of rising contention between their campaigns.

In so doing, they brought the dispute that has been seething through their party since the Bush presidency into the open.

Rubio argued that in Syria, the US needs to both defeat ISIS and overthrow President Bashar Assad.

Cruz countered that the US should ignore Assad and concentrate on utterly destroying ISIS. America’s national interest, he said, is not advanced by overthrowing Assad, because in all likelihood, Assad will be replaced by ISIS.

Cruz added that America’s experience in overthrowing Middle Eastern leaders has shown that it is a mistake to overthrow dictators. Things only got worse after America overthrew Saddam Hussein and supported the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi and Hosni Mubarak.

For his part, Rubio explained that since Assad is Iran’s puppet, leaving him in power empowers Iran. The longer he remains in power, the more control Iran will wield over Syria and Lebanon.

The two candidates’ dispute is far greater than the question of who rules Syria. Their disagreement on Syria isn’t a tactical argument. It goes to the core question of what is the proper role of American foreign policy.

Rubio’s commitment to overthrowing Assad is one component of a wider strategic commitment to fostering democratic governance in Syria. By embracing the cause of democratization through regime change, Rubio has become the standard bearer of George W. Bush’s foreign policy.

Bush’s foreign policy had two seemingly contradictory anchors – a belief that liberal values are universal, and cultural meekness.

Bush’s belief that open elections would serve as a panacea for the pathologies of the Islamic world was not supported by empirical data. Survey after survey showed that if left to their own devices, the people of Muslim world would choose to be led by Islamic supremacists. But Bush rejected the data and embraced the fantasy that free elections lead a society to embrace liberal norms of peace and human rights.

As to cultural meekness, since the end of the Cold War and with the rise of political correctness, the notion that America could call for other people to adopt American values fell into disrepute. For American foreign policy practitioners, the idea that American values and norms are superior to Islamic supremacist values smacked of cultural chauvinism.

Consequently, rather than urge the Islamic world to abandon Islamic supremacism in favor of liberal democracy, in their public diplomacy efforts, Americans sufficed with vapid pronouncements of love and respect for Islam.

Islamic supremacists, for their part stepped into the ideological void without hesitation. In Iraq, the Iranian regime spent hundreds of millions of dollars training Iranian-controlled militias, building Iranian-controlled political parties and publishing pro-Iranian newspapers as the US did nothing to support pro-American Iraqis.

Although many Republicans opposed Bush’s policies, few dared make their disagreement with the head of their party public. As a result, for many, Wednesday’s debate was the first time the foundations of Bush’s foreign policy were coherently and forcefully rejected before a national audience.

If Rubio is the heir to Bush, Cruz is the spokesman for Bush’s until now silent opposition. In their longheld view, democratization is not a proper aim of American foreign policy. Defeating America’s enemies is the proper aim of American foreign policy.

Rubio’s people claim that carpet bombing ISIS is not a strategy. They are right. There are parts missing from in Cruz’s position on Syria.

But then again, although still not comprehensive, Cruz’s foreign policy trajectory has much to recommend it. First and foremost, it is based on the world as it is, rather than a vision of how the world should be. It makes a clear distinction between America’s allies and America’s enemies and calls for the US to side with the former and fight the latter.

It is far from clear which side will win this fight for the heart of the Republican Party. And it is impossible to know who the next US president will be.

But whatever happens, the fact that after their seven-year vacation, the Americans are returning the real world is a cause for cautious celebration.

Rubio, Cruz and US Global Leadership