The Jury Talks Back


Ted Cruz on Syrian Air Strikes, Then and Now

Filed under: Uncategorized — Patterico @ 5:12 am

Ted Cruz, September 9, 2013 on proposed air strikes by President Obama: Why I’ll vote no on Syria strike.

First, Assad’s actions, however deplorable, are not a direct threat to U.S. national security. Many bad actors on the world stage have, tragically, oppressed and killed their citizens, even using chemical weapons to do so. Unilaterally avenging humanitarian disaster, however, is well outside the traditional scope of U.S. military action.

Second, just because Assad is a murderous thug does not mean that the rebels opposing him are necessarily better. As of May, seven of the nine major rebel groups appeared to have significant ties to Islamists, some of whom may have links to al-Qaeda and other terrorists. Their presence and power have only increased, according to media reports. We should never give weapons to people who hate us, and the United States should not support or arm al-Qaeda terrorists.

Third, the potential for escalation is immense. Syria is in the midst of a sectarian civil war, born of centuries-old animosities. We have no clear ally in this ­Sunni-Shiite conflict, and any “limited” and “proportional” strike could quickly get out of control, imperiling our allies and forcing us into the civil war.

The president and his secretary of state have repeatedly said that Assad’s use of chemical weapons violates an “international norm.” They insist it is critical that we send a “message” to Assad that his behavior is unacceptable. But it is not the job of U.S. troops to police international norms or to send messages. Our men and women in uniform have signed up to defend America.

That was Ted Cruz from 2013. I agreed with his reasoning then and I still agree with it now. Clear-eyed, principled, and well said. You can see why someone might like that Ted Cruz.

Cruz, however, is moderating his tone — now that we have a nominally Republican president who actually did commit an unconstitutional act of war against a foreign power (as Obama later did in Libya). Here is Cruz’s latest statement:

Much more deferential. What has changed? Only the president. Nothing more.

Trump wants to be perceived as a strongman. That means (among other things) sudden, ill-considered acts that have ramifications he hasn’t thought about. This is what folks like me warned against. If Donald Trump wants to be the toughest guy in the room, let him do it on his own and back it up with his tiny fists. He ought not use America’s military to make up for his own inadequacies. I’ll leave you with a few tweets that make the sort of clear statement Ted Cruz ought to have made — and still could make.


  1. Seems that Cruz is saying the same thing, Syria is bad, Assad is a monster, but any action against Syria must have a clear national security interest. He’s hardly grabbing a pair of pom-poms like so many this morning. Perhaps you’re reading a bit more into his statement than it actually says.

    Comment by Sean — 4/7/2017 @ 5:45 am

  2. I wish he would be the old Ted Cruz but he’s clearly decided that he does not want to oppose Trump the way he opposed Obama. Unfortunately, most Texans probably agree with the new Cruz so at least he’s doing what his constituents want, but I had hoped for more.

    Comment by DRJ — 4/7/2017 @ 5:56 am

  3. Well, let me try to take Ted Cruz’s side in this matter. Maybe he sees it now as a choice of military intervention or flooding the West with Muslim refugees, and he finds the former to be slightly more palatable than the latter. That’s the best I can do on his behalf.

    Comment by JVW — 4/7/2017 @ 11:35 am

  4. Maybe I missed the paragraph where Cruz says he supports Trumps actions, can someone point it out to me? Stating that any military action must have a clear national interest while requesting Trump take his case to Congress is hardly a ringing resolution of war or support for Trump’s missile attack. There really isn’t any difference between the two statements.

    Comment by Sean — 4/7/2017 @ 2:01 pm

  5. IMO everything Cruz said in 2013 applies in 2017, but Cruz’s statement was much stronger and clearer in opposition to Obama’s actions than Trump’s. Cruz leaves Trump wiggle room he didn’t leave Obama, e.g., in 2017, Cruz said Trump needs to make the case that Syria/Assad’s actions impact our national security but he specifically said they didn’t impact national security in 2013.

    I think Cruz softened his statement because Trump is from the same party and Cruz would get more blowback from Republicans regarding Trump than Obama — blowback that has hurt Cruz’s standing in Texas and the GOP. But it’s sad to see someone who made the case he us the most principled candidate decide he’s not that principled after all.

    Cruz still is a conservative to me, and us probably the most conservative of the 2016 candidates, but his stock has fallen thanks to Trump.

    Comment by DRJ — 4/7/2017 @ 2:24 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.

Live Preview

Powered by WordPress.