Want to know what the Rubio Doctrine would be, were we ever plagued by Marco as president? It's simple. Everything and nothing, with something in between; or, in even simpler terms, Rubio is contra to whatever both the isolationists (the Paul wing) and the interventionists (the McCain-Christie wing) tout.
For Jello lovers, his foreign policy doctrine is some tasty stuff, and today he molded a wobbly mountain of it at the American Enterprise Institute. The senator announced, as noted, that he rejects both "isolationism and reliance on military force"--that he is, in short, neither "dove" nor "hawk," although "Sometimes military engagement is our best option.”
No? Well, how 'bout an example? You see, Rubio says that mucho time ago he "urged the President to exercise American influence at a time when we clearly had the ability to shape the outcome of the Syrian war."
I consulted The Gutless Politician's Glossary of Evasive Language, under "A," for "American influence," and found this definition: "'American influence' is an utterly meaningless phrase and thus perfect for the gutlessly slippery, who later can always assert s/he meant 'force" when dilomacy fails, or meant 'diplomacy' when force fails."
As for Rubio's "shap[ing of] the outcome" in Syria, we know not if he meant "sustain a bloodthirsty dictator" or "strengthen bloodthirsty rebels." But that's unimportant. Our "ability," you see, was clear, meaning if you don't know what that means, that's your problem.
Sen. Rubio did, however, take one firm position that's sure to please everyone on the right: As Politico put it, he "said the solution to replacing sequestration’s sweeping cuts to the military is finding some savings through entitlement reform to Social Security and Medicare, not through tax increases or new revenue."
Atta boy, Marco.