A question of what works best: Negotiations or military action?

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz blasted President Obama’s response to Iran’s capture of 10 American sailors, saying if he’s the next commander in chief “any nation that captures our fighting men and women will feel the full force and fury of the United States of America.”

Obama’s different — his diplomacy freed the sailors within hours. He calls for “a patient and disciplined strategy that uses every element of our national power” but avoids “quagmire” or “spilling American blood and treasure” to no benefit, and he prefers “rallying the world behind causes that are right.”

Which way is better?

President Obama resolved the problem with patience and diplomacy, not with a warmonger attitude manifested by Ted Cruz. Diplomacy trumps all because, if it fails, you have a triage of options. Making a killing field of this would have proved we’re loose cannons. Obama’s diplomacy is appreciated.

Obama’s diplomacy in response to this suspicious incident put him in the company of Lyndon Johnson with his non-response to the USS Pueblo incident in 1968 and Richard Nixon’s to North Korea’s 1969 downing of the Deep Sea 129 spy plane, in which all 31 crewmen were killed.

Would North Korea be less hostile today had we unleashed a military response? Megalomaniacs respect only force!

The world has yet to learn that peace comes through a handshake and not a handgun or explosive device. It’s good that no lives were lost.

America needs a leader with a cool head and an understanding of what war is all about, one who will use the military only as a last resort. That said, we need a military second to none.

We also need a leader who will surround himself with knowledgeable people and let them do their jobs and not micro-manage. When we go to war, we have to go in to win it.

The question favors Obama and slams Cruz.

If folks like Cruz gain control, we’ll have a country of walls, bombs and guns defending a handful of billionaires while the rest of us starve.

We should always rely on diplomacy. I applaud President Obama’s approach.

Ted Cruz and the Republicans’ eagerness for war reminds me of the John Fogerty song Fortunate Son:

Some folks are born made to wave the flag.

Ooh, they’re red, white and blue.

And when the band plays Hail to the Chief,

Ooh, they point the cannon at you.

Lord, it ain’t me, it ain’t me,

I ain’t no senator’s son,

It ain’t me, it ain’t me.

I ain’t no fortunate one.

In a situation where lives are at stake, preservation of life is predominant. This situation worked out. It shouldn’t be made into a political football.

Winston Churchill said it best: “Jaw, jaw, jaw is better than war, war, war.” Sir Winston’s experience with war was up close and personal. Ted Cruz has had no such experience. He must have had other priorities.

President Obama’s method is far, far better. Cruz and the Republicans pay no attention to President Eisenhower’s warning about the military-industrial complex. Corporate welfare is at its height when military contracts are handed out.

Cruz has no problem sending someone else’s 18- or 19-year old to the front lines. What a hypocrite!

Obama certainly has spoken softly — no big stick.

He prefers “rallying the world behind causes that are right.” His past diplomacy has weakened our international relations, making it difficult to be recognized as a stalwart nation, helpful to all and, yes, carrying a big stick!

It’s clearly implied that Obama took the right approach — negotiations — whereas Cruz was being a bully.

Cruz’s approach is the strength of our military and our diplomats, so that they command the respect of other countries that attempt to bully our weak administration. Strength makes negotiations simpler!

As president, an immature, petulant and rash Ted Cruz would presumably let an unintentional error give cause to “carpet bomb” a sovereign nation and set off World War III.

That is astonishing! Thoughtful adults should be aghast!

In the modern era, our military involvements have not been due to threats to our country. Actually, we start wars when and where we want to project power and economic gain.

We spend so much on our military not because we need to avoid war, but because that’s what we need to wage war.

Ted Cruz is a hothead who would get us into another war. President Obama chose negotiation as a better way to resolve this problem.

When the Soviet Union put missiles into Cuba in 1962, our military leaders wanted to invade Cuba. We were on the brink of a nuclear war. Fortunately, President John F. Kennedy chose to blockade Cuba and the U.S.S.R withdrew the missiles. Cooler heads prevailed.

Neocons like Ted Cruz, Chris Christie and others on the Republican stage are convinced that the answer to any incident is massive retaliation. They’re more than willing to start an international conflict over brief detention of 10 U.S. sailors.

Why has negotiation become a synonym for weakness and cowardice? Because many neocons never served in the armed forces and this is their way to show their manhood?

Whatever the prescription — war or diplomacy — Americans must feel assured that the prescribed measures will achieve our goals.

History provides evidence of instances when dramatic military victories achieved long-term peace, and other instances when defensive measures led to prolonged carnage.

More than merely wishing to avoid war, diplomacy requires a general understanding of human nature and of the ideological, political and moral core of a particular “enemy.”

Obama bowed to Iran, a terrorist nation. The result is that terrorist nations know that they can manipulate Obama to get what they want.

Cruz shows he’s not mature enough to lead the nation. It’s easy to talk tough, but if his objective were to free these men, he’d use quiet diplomacy.

President Obama did the right thing in this case. Any candidate who indicates he would be aggressive in this situation deserves no respect.

This story was originally published January 22, 2016 at 5:27 PM with the headline "A question of what works best: Negotiations or military action?."