What? Ted Cruz thinks we should rule out ground troops to fight ISIS?

I am generally a fan of Ted Cruz, and I don't get too concerned when I hear the heroes of the political class complaining that he doesn't work with them well. They're not working toward anything good, so if Cruz wants to become a headache for them, I say good work. But if he wants to be president (and I'll consider that an if until he says he does), the instinct he shows in the following statement about ISIS is troubling.

Some of the statement is right on, particularly the part about the Obama Administration's refusal to directly arm the Kurds. But even if you don't like the idea of U.S. ground troops joining the battle, what kind of leader would rule it out as Cruz appears to do here?

“We met today with the president of Kurdistan. And the Kurds on the ground are fantastic fighters. The Peshmerga have been our allies. They have been our friends. And they're actually fighting every day to stop ISIS. Now, Dana, what makes no sense whatsoever is, the Obama administration is refusing to directly arm the Kurds. We need to arm the Kurds now because they are our boots on the ground. I don't believe it is necessary to put American boots on the ground if we are arming the Peshmerga. They're fighting there. Just today, they didn't ask us for boots on the ground, but what they did say is they need the weaponry to stand up and destroy ISIS. And the Peshmerga on the ground, combined with overwhelming American airpower, can take out ISIS. But we're not seeing leadership from the administration to get that done. Instead, they continue to send weaponry to Baghdad, who doesn't pass it onto the Peshmerga, and it doesn't get put to use effectively.”

Now maybe he's just trying to make the point that Obama - who constantly attacks strawman opponents that he claims are demanding we send in ground troops - could do a lot to aid his cause of not doing that by arming those who are already there and willing to fight.

---

I hope that's all he's doing. But one thing that makes me more positive than negative toward the idea of a Cruz presidency is that he has seemed, up to now, to understand the value of U.S. military power where it's needed across the globe. That distinguishes him from his pal Rand Paul, who generally agrees with Cruz on domestic matters but takes a libertarian tacts on foreign affairs that really doesn't differ much from Obama's. If Ted Cruz is now going down that same road, he doesn't offer much promise for a renewal of America's leadership role in the world. Maybe he'll clarify this in the days ahead. The statement does leave a lot of room for interpretation. But look: An awful lot of U.S. politicians are reluctant to talk about boots on the ground because they perceive that the public is "war weary." I get the political instinct, but far more important is to let ISIS know that America's leaders are willing to do whatever it takes to stop them, and that we don't just eliminate options out of hand because of our own political climate. I'm looking for a president who puts that ahead of political concerns. I'm still hoping Ted Cruz is one of the options who would qualify, this disappointing-sounding statement notwithstanding.