Why the Hell Would Trump Nominate Marco Rubio for Secretary of State?

Is this an 'America First' move?

It appears that President-elect Donald Trump is set to nominate Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) for secretary of state, a move that might be puzzling to those who favor Trump’s foreign policy to that of establishment Republicans.

In fact, when Republican voters chose Trump as the nominee in 2016, it was a repudiation of the neoconservative approach to foreign policy that marked former President George W. Bush’s administration.

There can be no doubt that Team Trump is aware of Rubio’s neocon leanings, so why would they choose him?

During a 2015 interview Sen. Rubio clarified his stance on “nation-building,” a favored policy among neoconservatives. “I don’t like nation-building. But I like assisting them in building their nation,” he said.

For many who have grown weary of foreign entanglements, this might sound like a distinction without much of a difference because it still involves the United States involving itself in foreign matters.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) was the One Lucky Guy on Outnumbered today, and decided to play around with the definition of the word “nation-building.”

“If a nation expresses a desire to become a democratic nation, particularly one we invaded,” he said, “I do believe we have a responsibility to help them move in that direction.”

He continued: “But the most important immediate responsibility we have is to help them build a functional government that can actually meet the needs of their people in the short and long term.”

“That sounds like nation-building,” Kirsten Powers said skeptically.

“It’s not nation-building,” Rubio quickly responded. “We are assisting them in building their nation.”

The senator was a focal supporter of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. He aligned with the Bush administration’s contention that Saddam Hussein’s regime posed a dire threat to the United States because it supposedly possessed weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorist entities. "The world is a better place because Saddam Hussein doesn't run Iraq,” he said during a 2015 television appearance.

It is worth mentioning that Rubio has shifted his stance, saying that if he had known that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, he would not have supported the invasion. "Not only would I not have been in favor of it, President Bush would not have been in favor of it,” he stated.

Rubio also supported the war in Afghanistan to dismantle terrorist networks and preventing radical Islamic extremists from using the nation as a safe haven. He emphasized the importance of a sustained U.S. military presence in the region to ensure stability and protect American interests.

The senator also opposed Trump’s plan to withdraw from Afghanistan, expressing concerns that “it would turn into a Saigon-type of situation where it would fall very quickly and then our ability to conduct operations against terrorist elements in the region could be compromised.”

Rubio also strongly supported the U.S.’s military intervention in Libya under the Obama administration. He called on Obama to clearly state that regime change was the goal and slammed his administration for a lack of clear objectives.

The lawmaker went so far as to urge Congress to authorize the use of military force against Muammar Gaddafi’s regime, arguing that it was a moral and strategic imperative.

Senator Marco Rubio offered his full-throated support Wednesday for the U.S. intervention in Libya and called on President Barack Obama to be clear that regime change is the objective of America’s involvement. In an interview yesterday afternoon, Rubio said that failing to remove Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi, after Obama publicly called for him to go, would have grave consequences for America’s reputation in the region and in the world.

“When an American president says the guy needs to go, you better make sure that it happens because your credibility and your stature in the world is on the line,” he said.

While Rubio is critical of some details of the Obama administration’s handling of Libya – they waited too long to act, he says, and failed to provide a clear objective for U.S. involvement – Rubio supports President Obama’s decision to intervene.

In a letter to the Republican and Democratic Senate leaders, he argued that the resolution “should also state that removing Moamar Qadhafi from power is in our national interest and therefore should authorize the President to accomplish this goal” and “recognize the Interim Transitional National Council as the legitimate government in Libya.”

Rubio added: “And if the Libyan people want to get rid of him, and we have a chance to influence that in a positive way without hurting ourselves, we should. And the message should be: If you’re an enemy of the United States and we have a chance to take a shot at you in a way that doesn’t hurt us, and has a chance of being successful, we’re probably going to take it. There’s a price to pay for being an enemy of the United States. It’s not a good idea to be on our bad side. And that’s an important message to send. And I think the president reached that same conclusion when he stood in front of the microphone in front of the world and said Moamar Qadhafi must go.”

Rubio also favored U.S. intervention in the Syrian Civil War, advocating for arming Syrian rebels against Bashar al-Assad’s regime. He cosponsored a resolution in 2012 urging Obama to give military assistance to Syrian opposition groups, many of whom were terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda and others.

To be fair, Rubio appears to have at least taken a different tone on the war between Ukraine and Russia. He has argued that Ukraine must seek “a negotiated settlement” with Russia and also voted against another military aid package to Ukraine in April

Perhaps Trump believes Rubio has changed his mind on foreign policy and won’t push for more wars or other types of foreign intervention. However, there does not appear to be any evidence of a potential change of heart. Rubio has not yet backtracked on his past support for these actions.

But even more distressing is the possibility that Rubio’s appointment could signal that Trump is willing to take a more active role in foreign military entanglements in his second term in office. While the president-elect has repeatedly stressed his desire not to get caught up in unnecessary wars, it could be that he is the one who had a change of heart. Either way, Rubio’s appointment will likely be a controversial one.