This is yet another issue designed to woo social conservatives insistent on waging yesterday’s wars and thereby making the party seem clueless. It also reflects Cruz’s ignorance on national security. Max Boot recently explained:

The odds of having a draft at all are low because of how well the all-volunteer system has worked. The only model we have is Israel, the only country in the world that drafts women along with men. Women constitute a third of all Israeli conscripts but make up only 2.5 percent of combat soldiers – and most of those women are in light infantry units that primarily patrol the peaceful Jordanian border. Women are not allowed into elite infantry or heavy armor units, which can be expected to suffer the heaviest losses in combat. The odds are that if the U.S. instituted a draft, women would be allowed to volunteer for slots in ground combat units but would not be required do so. In any case, unless physical standards are radically transformed, very few women will qualify for such units.

The most informed senators on national security (including Marco Rubio) understand this. Roll Call reports today: “While there’s no expectation the U.S. military will return to conscription any time soon, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is siding with service chiefs who say that with all combat roles opened to women, the Selective Service system should include them, too.” The report continued:

AD

AD

“As women serve in more roles across the armed forces, I support the recommendation of the Army Chief of Staff and the Commandant of the Marine Corps that women should register for Selective Service,” McCain said in a statement provided to Roll Call. “It is the logical conclusion of the decision to open combat positions to women.” . . . . Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, a frequent ally of McCain on national security policy, said earlier this week she had reached the same conclusion after hearing from the uniformed leaders of the Army and Marine Corps at an Armed Services Committee hearing last week on broader issues of women in combat.

But let’s back up for a moment. Cruz is really saying that in a time of extreme emergency — the only conceivable time a draft would be needed — women would not be able to serve in any military capacity. Are women less capable? Less patriotic? Cruz seems immune to the notion that one of his little girls might grow up relishing the chance to direct drones, create advanced software, solve logistical issues and deal with the thousands of other tasks military men and women carry out. It’s both insulting to women and counter to the need for attracting the best and the brightest to defend the country.

But then Cruz is never really interested in what the military has to say about the military. Despite near-unanimous advice from current and former commanders, Cruz insists that “carpet bombing” will destroy the Islamic State. This is not a coherent national security position and (like Donald Trump’s support for “worse” methods than waterboarding) amounts to advocacy of war crimes. It was a stance designed to woo supporters of Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who oppose deployment of ground forces no matter how small and how critically needed. Paul had to drop out of the race in large part because he was entirely lacking in credibility on national security.

Cruz also defied the loud and consistent opposition from military commanders on the proposal from liberal Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) to take sexual assault investigations out of the hands of commanders, a move that would have damaged morale and disrupted the chain of command. Thankfully, the measure was beaten back. Cruz was once again unconcerned with national security, perhaps ensnared in the trap of political correctness and gender-pandering that he deplores in others.

AD

AD

And let us not forget that Cruz was on the opposite side of conservative foreign policy experts and intelligence officials in his effort to “fix” what was not broken, the Natioanal Security Agency metadata-gathering program. Once again, he teamed with liberals (the American Civil Liberties Union and Sen. Patrick Leahy) on a stance designed to curry political favor (with libertarians) rather than put national security as his top priority.