Republican presidential candidate, Senator Marco Rubio, was questioned about the major national security speech which he delivered at the Council on Foreign Relations on Wednesday, May 13th. “The Rubio Doctrine” is based on three key pillars: 1) American strength, 2) the protection of the American economy in a globalized world, and 3) moral clarity regarding America’s core values. To improve America’s strength, Senator Rubio would increase defense spending. He would follow the 2012 Budget Baseline presented by former Defense Secretary Gates. These are expenditures based on strategic needs which were developed by a bi-partisan committee. He prefers this over the current “system” of Congress and the President choosing random numbers. Rubio would favor increasing our naval power in order to protect our economic interests. He also called for increased spending to defend cyber-space and outer-space. Russia and China have been engaged in cyber warfare, and China has been working on ways to shoot down satellites. The improved American strength will be needed to protect our globalized economy. The Senator discussed how 50% of the world’s commerce passes through the South China Sea. These international sea lanes are being threatened by aggressive moves by China to build bases on islands in these waters. In the future, US ships might have to pay fees to pass through this vital area. The effect could be the loss of American jobs. To Marco Rubio, America’s core values are the belief in individual freedom and democracy and the free enterprise system. To react to threats by Chin and Russia and radical Islam, we need to be unambiguous about our beliefs in freedom and democracy when forming coalitions with countries in these regions, especially countries in the Middle East.
Lastly, Senator Rubio was asked the same question about Iraq that Jeb Bush was recently asked. Rubio was unequivocal in stating that he would have invaded Iraq if he had the same intelligence information that was available to President George Bush at the time. If he knew then what we know now, he would have handled Iraq and Saddam Hussein differently.
