Watching Ted Cruz spar with Marco Rubio over foreign policy and civil liberties in the fifth Republican presidential debate, with occasional assists from Rand Paul, brought to mind a pair of recent columns by my Examiner colleague Tim Carney.
In the first piece, Tim asked why Paul kept talking answering questions about what he would do about the Islamic State by restating his opposition to invading Iraq. In the second, he noted that the Kentucky senator had become a message candidate who was more eager to criticize Rubio, with whom he is competing for relatively few votes, rather than trying to win back some votes he may have lost to Cruz.
As it happens, Paul didn’t spare Cruz in his recent ad hitting his two fellow freshman senators turned Republican presidential candidates on refugees. But Tim’s second column answers the question he poses in his first.
When Paul was still trying to reach beyond his base and win the nomination, he talked a lot about how he would hit the Islamic State, to the point where many libertarians were alienated. Since Paul has become more of a message candidate, it makes little sense for him to emphasize that part now, so he has stopped doing so. It makes more sense for him to emphasize where he’s different from the rest of the field.
Answering what you’d do about the Islamic State (a genuine threat to Americans) by talking about what you wouldn’t do about Saddam (who wasn’t a threat at the time the U.S. invaded) 12 years ago is indeed inadequate both politically and on policy grounds. But given where Rand is in the race it isn’t totally without merit either.
The fact is, some presidential contenders want to fight the Islamic State by repeating Iraq and Libya in Syria, overthrowing Assad. That makes the lessons of Iraq pretty relevant. Others would essentially reinvade and reoccupy Iraq, which makes the lessons of Iraq pretty relevant.
Finally, there’s a case to be made that for the West that the Islamic State is at least as much of an immigration problem as a foreign policy problem. The terrorists killing Americans and Frenchmen aren’t the ones in Iraq or Syria but the ones right here, another area where it is more profitable to argue with Rubio than Cruz.
None of these points may win you the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. But they make for an important debate.
