Op Ed: Senator Cruz’s emetic foreign policy

Even as a failed presidential candidate, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) continues to showcase his trademark wit and wisdom. In discussing the Trump-Cruz conundrum with "The Daily Show’s" Trevor Noah, Mr. Graham reflected that choosing Mr. Trump or Mr. Cruz “is like being shot or poisoned,” respectively. Shockingly, Mr. Cruz recently earned Mr. Graham’s endorsement. While the South Carolina senator’s logic holds up, poison is poison, and Mr. Cruz’s foreign policy is especially toxic. It is hypocritical, lacks strategic vision and is unrealistic.

Failing the test of consistent rhetoric, Mr. Cruz’s foreign policy comes apart at first glance. Touting the importance of freedom and democracy abroad only means so much given Mr. Cruz’s well-documented, Trump-esque admiration of Egyptian President and dictator Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. Last August, Mr. Cruz said President Obama does not show as much “courage” as Mr. Sisi in combatting extremism. Mr. Cruz neglected to mention that Mr. Sisi’s courts have sentenced 547 political opponents to death. On the economic side, the Texas senator’s commitment to free trade ends when he submits to protectionist fear of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in key primary states like Iowa. Senator Cruz’s campaign website claims that “[The United States] should stand as a shining beacon of what free people enjoying a free market and system of government can achieve.” Is principle irrelevant to Mr. Cruz when political points are at stake?

If there weren’t enough issues with the Cruz Doctrine, it also suffers from clouded vision and, well, bad ideas. The Texas senator fails to see the whole board of geopolitics, arguing that the United States “has no dog in the fight of the Syrian civil war.” American experts and regional allies see things differently, to say nothing of the Syrian people and others threatened by Russian and Islamic-State influence. Meanwhile, Mr. Cruz casts aside implications of other policies when he advocates for patrolling Muslim neighborhoods to prevent future terror attacks. The idea’s indecency may just be overshadowed by its short-sightedness: the Cruz counter-terror plan alienates core allies against Islamic extremism.

Cruz supporters often rebut these points by citing the senator’s record on Israel. They are right that he has voted repeatedly in Israel’s favor. But Senator Cruz’s pro-Israel credentials erode when he makes offhanded comments about pernicious “New York values” revolving “around money and media.” It’s an all-too familiar euphemism for Jews, and it begs the question: with rhetoric like that, how genuine is Mr. Cruz’s support of the Jewish State?

But the worst of Mr. Cruz’s foreign policy is its tenuous relationship with reality. This candidate thinks American counter-terrorism policy should be to “kill the bad guys and then come home.” Senator Cruz apparently forgot that leaving power vacuums emboldens actors like ISIS and the Taliban. He neglects the reality that when a nation intervenes, it makes a long-term strategic, military and economic commitment, lest the progress made be reversed. This is to say nothing of his views on military tactics. Mr. Cruz has advocated “carpet bombing” Islamic-State-held territory, which is densely populated with civilians. “Carpet bombing” notoriously yields civilian casualties and doesn’t work, as evidenced by the Vietnam War. As Frank Constanza of "Seinfeld" said, “It’s not rude; it’s stupid!”

The New York Times' columnist David Brooks recently wrote that Mr. Trump “doesn’t know what he doesn’t know.” He was right. But Mr. Cruz is perfectly aware of these doctrinal faults. He knows exactly what he doesn’t know. He prioritizes optics over objectives, expediency over wisdom. Concerned with headlines rather than consequences, his foreign policy is half-baked and half-hearted. And this is what nauseates me: Mr. Cruz is intellectually capable of more but opts for comfortable, complacent mediocrity. If not just problematic, it is insulting to the high office for which he competes.

There was a time when debates were about substance and when braggadocio lost votes. Today’s two Republican frontrunners are engaged in a race to bottom, and in this race, no one wins. Stripped of his bluster, Mr. Cruz is smart enough to be Commander-in-Chief, but his foreign policy doesn’t make the cut. I will not be “shot or poisoned” come November.

Editor’s note: If you would like to send your response or make an Op-Ed contribution to the Opinion section, please email us at tuftsdailyoped@gmail.com. The Opinion section looks forward to hearing from you.