• 
• 
• 
• 
by Frank James
Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.,) a reliable conservative, is one of the most thoughtful and deliberate members of the U.S. Senate and one of its recognized foreign-policy experts as the former chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and now its senior Republican.
So it's something of a watershed moment to have him say publicly, as he did tonight on the Senate floor, that the current surge is unlikely to achieve U.S. national interests in the small time window provided by domestic politics, if it ever could, and to urge the Bush Administration to immediately embark on a new strategy.
Lugar's statesman-like warning was not just to President Bush, but to his congressional colleagues:
I speak to my fellow Senators, when I say that the President is not the only American leader who will have to make adjustments to his or her thinking. Each of us should take a step back from the sloganeering rhetoric and political opportunism that has sometimes characterized this debate. The task of securing U.S. interests in the Middle East will be extremely difficult if Iraq policy is formulated on a partisan basis, with the protagonists on both sides ignoring the complexities at the core of our situation.
Lugar said what many critics of the present strategy have, that it would likely take years not months for the current strategy of an increased U.S. and Iraqi troop presence to improve security significantly and as much time for the Iraqi political leadership to achieve the kind of understandings that would give the nation a chance of surviving as a cohesive whole.
But the political realities in the U.S. simply won't provide enough time, Lugar said:
In my judgment, the costs and risks of continuing down the current path outweigh the potential benefits that might be achieved. Persisting indefinitely with the surge strategy will delay policy adjustments that have a better chance of protecting our vital interests over the long term.
I do not come to this conclusion lightly, particularly given that General Petraeus will deliver a formal report in September on his efforts to improve security. The interim information we have received from General Petraeus and other officials has been helpful and appreciated. I do not doubt the assessments of military commanders that there has been some progress in security. More security improvements in the coming months may be achieved. We should attempt to preserve initiatives that have shown promise, such as engaging Sunni groups that are disaffected with the extreme tactics and agenda of Al Qaeda in Iraq. But three factors – the political fragmentation in Iraq, the growing stress on our military, and the constraints of our own domestic political process -- are converging to make it almost impossible for the United States to engineer a stable, multi-sectarian government in Iraq in a reasonable time frame.
Lugar's recommended that instead of pouring more human and financial treasure into Iraq, the U.S. shift policy towards two goals that promise more long-term stability in the Middle East--working to make progress on the Israel-Arab problem and going full bore on an effort to increase U.S. energy independence.
He wasn't advocating a complete abandonment of Iraq but rather a downsizing of U.S. effort there as American put more of its energies into tackling two more fundamental problems--the Arab-Israel problem and U.S. dependence on Middle East oil.
A diplomatic offensive centered on Iraq and surrounding countries would help lift American interests in the Middle East. But credibility and sustainability of our actions depend on addressing the two elephants in the room of U.S. Middle East policy -- the Arab-Israeli conflict and U.S. dependence on Persian Gulf oil. These are the two problems that our adversaries, especially Iran, least want us to address. They are the conditions that most constrain our freedom of action and perpetuate vulnerabilities. The implementation of an effective program to remedy these conditions could be as valuable to our long-term security as the achievement of a stable, pro-Western government in Iraq.The Arab-Israeli conflict will not be easily solved. Recent combat between the Hamas and Fatah Palestinian factions that led to Hamas’ military preeminence in the Gaza Strip complicates efforts to put the peace process back on track. But even if a settlement is not an immediate possibility, we have to demonstrate clearly that the United States is committed to helping facilitate a negotiated outcome. Progress in the Arab-Israeli conflict would not end the sectarian conflict in Iraq, but it could restore credibility lost by the United States in the region. It also would undercut terrorist propaganda, slow Iranian influence, and open new possibilities related to Syria.
Lugar warned that if the U.S. doesn't change course and soon, it will run out of time to make the adjustment he urged.
Mr. President, the issue before us is whether we will refocus our policy in Iraq on realistic assessments of what can be achieved, and on a sober review of our vital interests in the Middle East. Given the requirements of military planners, the stress of our combat forces, and our own domestic political timeline, we are running out of time to implement a thoughtful Plan B that attempts to protect our substantial interests in the region, while downsizing our military presence in Iraq.
We need to recast the geo-strategic reference points of our Iraq policy. We need to be preparing for how we will array U.S. forces in the region to target terrorist enclaves, deter adventurism by Iran, provide a buffer against regional sectarian conflict, and generally reassure friendly governments that the United States is committed to Middle East security. Simultaneously, we must be aggressive and creative in pursuing a regional dialogue that is not limited to our friends. We cannot allow fatigue and frustration with our Iraq policy to lead to the abandonment of the tools and relationships we need to defend our vital interests in the Middle East.
If we are to seize opportunities to preserve these interests, the Administration and Congress must suspend what has become almost knee-jerk political combat over Iraq. Those who offer constructive criticism of the surge strategy are not defeatists, any more than those who warn against a precipitous withdrawal are militarists. We need to move Iraq policy beyond the politics of the moment and re-establish a broad consensus on the role of the United States in the Middle East. If we do that, the United States has the diplomatic influence and economic and military power to strengthen mutually beneficial policies that could enhance security and prosperity throughout the region. I pray that the President and the Congress will move swiftly and surely to achieve that goal.
Coming from someone like Lugar, this speech only increases the pressure on the president to think beyond the surge. And it is likely to give other Republicans who might've been hesitant to openly criticize the current Iraq strategy the push they need to come forward with their own demands for a changed strategy.
For Democrats, Lugar's speech can only serve as an encouragement for them to keep the pressure on the president and hope that Lugar will help them get enough votes in the Senate to at least override a presidential veto of future efforts to enact a timeline for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.
Comments
Me to Lugar: Too little; too late. Until he and the other Reptilians VOTE to withdraw troops from the occupation, I don't care what he says.
Here's another thought: Exactly what are say, 50,000 troops going to do in Iraq? The country is out of control with more than double that figure, so is reducing this going to make things better? The only answer is to get our folks completely out of Iraq.
It's long past time to face reality. The Iraq war was based on lies, and once the American people finally figured it out, they don't want to waste another dime. The neocons have completely and utterly failed, and there is no one to blame except themselves.
Posted by: weinerdog43 | June 25, 2007 10:20 PM
"Key Republican Senator Urges New Iraq Strategy Now"
I knew the Republicans would start backing off of their support for W.'s civil war in Iraq starting this fall, after all, they're more concerned about getting re-elected than anything else.
Posted by: John E | June 25, 2007 10:21 PM
The reality is that American deaths in Iraq project to more than 5,000 before election day November, 2008.
The Republicans up for election cannot live with this situation. They must have the troops coming home or be destroyed in the election.
Posted by: c. perry | June 25, 2007 10:50 PM
Lugar's saying now what a few said in 2003 and were shouted down as being soft and blind (blah, blah, blah)to the "dangers" that Iraq posed -- that we have taken our eye off the ball and are directing too much time and resources to something that will not solve our or the world's problems concerning the Middle East. The money spent, the lives lost. Ech.
Posted by: kb | June 25, 2007 10:54 PM
Sicko II, the real exploits of a group of sickos, otherwise known as The Loony Left, lead by Chief Loon, John E. This ilk offers nothing to society, and their medical prognosis: complete psychosis.
Posted by: John D | June 25, 2007 11:37 PM
Lugar is 100% right - we can't just pull everyone out immediately (not that that option is a remote possibility in the reality-based world) nor are we going to sustain this level of death and dismemberment - he's pointing out the facts that we need to move beyond Iraq to address other, long-term issues that are actually important to US security. Finally, a prominent and respected Republican stepping forward and stating the truth: that we can leave Iraq and the world will not come to an end, nor will the 'dead-enders' in their 'last throes' 'follow us home' - we need to protect the Kurds, find a way to enable Iraqis who have supported American efforts move their families to the US, move the troops to Afghanistan where we can fight the real enemy (on the Afghani-Pakistan border) and encourage a solution to the Israel-Palistane standoff, while simultaneously focusing domestic efforts on moving beyond fossil fuels - not with some red-herring pipe dream about hydrogen cars or jet packs but supporting a green economy.
Posted by: GP | June 26, 2007 12:37 AM
I can't WAIT to hear bruce, little johnny d, and others spin this one.
Obviously Richard Lugar is a liberal surrender monkey America hater.
Watch the Republican rats use Luger's cover to jump ship.
The wheels are falling off the Neocon bus. I hope you enjoyed it, fools. The party is split. The Neocons are DONE. The moderates are taking back their party starting today, and it's gonna take decades to regain America's trust. In the meantime, the Democrats will run the show.
Posted by: david k | June 26, 2007 1:14 AM
A great America. Thank you Mr Lugar for taking a stand and doing the right thing. We need to start planning a way out of the mess Mr Bush and Cheney put us in.
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | June 26, 2007 4:24 AM
Re: after all, they're more concerned about getting re-elected than anything else.
Anyone know where we can get a list of (both sides, both houses) who will be up for re-election in '08? I'm sure it is out there but can someone point me in the right direction to find out? I'd like to see who starts flopping next.
Posted by: lochnessmonster | June 26, 2007 6:57 AM
Headline that got me here – Senator: Iraq policy is failing
Do you think?!?
Posted by: Gort | June 26, 2007 7:38 AM
Each of us should take a step back from the sloganeering rhetoric and political opportunism that has sometimes characterized this debate.
HMMMM...What say ye republicans? Kick him out of the party or admit that your unpatriotic name-calling was wrong?
Posted by: bill r. | June 26, 2007 7:56 AM
Lugar is late to the party. But at least he's arrived. If his comments help provide political cover for other moderate Republicans to come to their spines/senses good for us and the troops.
It's long time past due to for us to leave entirely the "sand box" that is a multi-faceted civil war. Let the Iraqis sort out their own issues.
Posted by: Doug Zook | June 26, 2007 8:12 AM
His position is tactical, timed for the upcoming election. Everyone knows it.
Posted by: Tom | June 26, 2007 8:29 AM
Where are all the mainstream media stories about how Lugar is siding wtih the 'far left' in the country? And where are all the Republicans saying Lugar is for defeat and helping the terrorists? Could it be Republicans get treated with kid gloves in the media compared to Democrats?
Posted by: Paul | June 26, 2007 8:59 AM
Thank god we still have a few statesmen like Biden, Lugar, and Levin left in the Senate. If we left it up to the political fanatics commenting on the story as above and on D Kos, we would all end up with cowards like Obama and Clinton who shift their votes with the changing of the wind.
Thank you Sen. Lugar - and more importantly to Sen. Levin, who opposed the war authorization and has since acted in a responsible manner with his votes despite the political backlash of the moronic left. As long as you place lives above politics, regardless of your party affiliation, you'll receive my support.
Posted by: Chris | June 26, 2007 9:18 AM
Don't worry. The Rush L., Sean Hannity, John D. group will find someway to discredit Sen. Lugar. They will claim he is just trying to sell a book or his 3rd cousin was married to a KKK member or something. Anything to prove his views to be dishonest.
Posted by: Jim G. | June 26, 2007 9:20 AM
'so it goes'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6236066.stm
Posted by: C.Morris | June 26, 2007 9:27 AM
As befits the "Swamp", the article starts off with a lie: that the "Swamp" considers Sen. Lugar a "Key GOP Senator".
Best proof that the "Swamp" doesn't consider Sen. Lugar "Key" is the "Swamp" itself.
A search of the "Swamp" archives show that, other than "Swamp sunrise" announcements, Sen. Lugar has been mentioned only 14 times in "Swamp" articles prior to today. About one mention per month. And only once, in a year and a half, has Sen. Lugar's name been in a "Swamp" article headline!
For a "key" senator, the "Swamp" sure isn't paying him much attention.
We all know what happened here: Frank James wrote up Lugar's importance only after Lugar said things Frank James and other media liberals like to hear.
And it would take an electron microscope to discern any specific policy recommendations Sen. Lugar is making. Phrases like "diplomatic offensive" are vague, meaningless pablum.
Posted by: Bruce | June 26, 2007 9:29 AM
On behalf of liberals everywhere, let me say to Senator Lugar, "Welcome to the Democratic Party." When do you plan to formally cross the aisle? We can use your vote.
Posted by: Richard Friedman | June 26, 2007 9:33 AM
Good for Lugar, but he's late. The water is over the dam. Anyone with openmindedness and objectivity will tell you the current strategy is not working and will not work under these circumstances. There was never a plan or an exit strategy. Military solution not possible. Just political and this illegitimate Bush administration needs to hear it loud and clear. The incompetent and corrupt puppet Iraqi government also need to be replaced.
Posted by: Doug R. | June 26, 2007 9:34 AM
So, Chris. You posting from Iraq, or are you just another chickenhawk?
Posted by: weinerdog43 | June 26, 2007 9:38 AM
Bruce - so you agree that Obama and Hillary are major Senators and everything they say is "important".
Nice to know our Founding Fathers vision of democracy can be boiled down to the number of times a Senator appears in an archive on a local Chicago paper.
Pure genius. Uh, "Senator from Indiana - sorry your voice is meaningless, step aside. This is America you are not worthy".
Posted by: Gus | June 26, 2007 9:47 AM
Bruce-
The Ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee isn't "key" when talking about Iraq?
Even by the standards of your posts, that's the silliest piece of spin I've seen in a long long time.
Posted by: Tony | June 26, 2007 9:48 AM
Bruce how much does the RNC pay you???
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | June 26, 2007 10:14 AM
Bruce,
You are the best argument against yourself that anyone could possibly devise.
Posted by: C.Morris | June 26, 2007 10:21 AM
For those of us who want to very substantially reduce our bloody, trillion-dollar involvement in Iraq's civil war, the task is to convince as many Republican senators as possible that a change and a withdrawal are needed.
Then the Congress may actually do something.
Lugar should receive bipartisan national applause for his statements and hopefully other prominent Republican politicians will follow his lead. If that doesn't happen, unfortunately,
we may see the acceleration of a trend towards a one-party (Democratic) nation. Even assuming some splintering into Dem factions, that prospect is not a good one
and will serve US citizens poorly.
Posted by: Helena | June 26, 2007 10:47 AM
So I guess brucey thinks that the only important thing is to support the occupation. I'm still waiting for brucey to sign up to fight. If he shoots a gun like he shoots off his mouth, he can defeat the insurgency single-handedly.
Posted by: snitramc | June 26, 2007 11:10 AM
Great post, Bruce, as usual you cut right to the heart of what is REALLY important: whether or not Dick Lugar is a "key" Republican. How about this headline, which would be equally appropriate:
"GOP senator urges new Iraq strategy now."
I simply laugh at your daily contortions to find "liberal bias" everywhere you look, while ignoring the irony that it was the "liberal media" that made the Iraq War possible with their ceaseless acceptance and regurgitation without question of the administration's false or inflated claims.
Posted by: Bryan | June 26, 2007 11:27 AM
"Bryan", my post (which a 5 year old child can understand, but not yourself) didn't take a stand on whether Lugar is a "key" senator or not, but rather focused on how hypocritical reporter Frank James, who's ignored Lugar for a year and a half, suddenly finds Lugar "key".
And your assertion that the media (7-1 Democrat according to campaign contributions) hasn't been liberal enough, shows what kind of alternate reality you live in.
As to Sen. Lugar, He (not the troops) should be redeployed. To his Indiana home.
Posted by: Bruce | June 26, 2007 11:42 AM
Frank James' writing offers more of the same that we've come to expect from the media. After a reasoned and balanced entreaty from a senior senator to try to remove politics from the discussion for the sake of larger American interests, James' closing paragraph shows it's politics as usual after all. "For Democrats, Lugar's speech can only serve as an encouragement for them to keep the pressure on the president and hope that Lugar will help them get enough votes in the Senate to at least override a presidential veto of future efforts to enact a timeline for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq."
The words are no sooner put to paper than the author immediately seeks a way to politically spin the speech in a way that is harmful to the administration. This would appear to be the exact opposite of Lugar's intended effect.
Posted by: TKD Jason | June 26, 2007 12:19 PM
Bruce, correction, the donations by journalists were actually 9 to 1 in favor of liberal causes and candidates, not 7 to 1.
Posted by: John D | June 26, 2007 12:24 PM
For those who forget, in early 2003 before the war, Lugar and Joe Biden, the ranking members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, were begging Bush to give them a post-invasion plan in order to get to work on the nation building. They went public, appearing on all the major news shows. But because Bush had no plan, no plan was forthcoming.
Lugar isn't late to the party. The party was late to him.
Posted by: Dirk | June 26, 2007 12:26 PM
I think it's telling that the majority of posters on this thread are commenting about Iraq and the two mainstay Republican dunderheads on the Swamp (Bruce, John D) are busy trying to find a "liberal media bias" in the story.
Get used to being in the minority you GOP losers (Bruce, John D).
Posted by: John E | June 26, 2007 1:09 PM
"Rats leaving a sinking ship!" Lugar is early, but most GOP congressmen who rubber-stamped Bush's war policy will jump ship before the next election. Observe as they distance themselves from their flawed leader. And get them out of office!
Posted by: JON WINDY | June 26, 2007 1:20 PM
thank you mr. james for your
accurate reporting
of what was actually said
vs the distortions made by the AP and of
coarse published
in the nytimes today.
Posted by: jimsr | June 26, 2007 2:00 PM
Full trascript (and audio) at http://lugar.senate.gov/
Posted by: Tom J | June 26, 2007 2:18 PM
And your assertion that the media (7-1 Democrat according to campaign contributions) hasn't been liberal enough, shows what kind of alternate reality you live in.
Posted by: Bruce | June 26, 2007 11:42 AM
On a day in which Rupert Murdoch is spending another $5 Billion buying up even more of our media.
When the News Corp board meets to decide the product that it will sell to the consumer (meaning, which version of "News" we will be priveledged to receive), which do you think get's precedence in the decision making process:
1) UltraConservative Rupert Murdoch & his ultraconservative Board Member peers
or
2) Some polling data on the campaign donation habits of the talking haircut in the studio.
Hmmmmmm... I wonder.
Someone's definately living in an alternate reality, Bruce. It's you.
Posted by: david k | June 26, 2007 3:17 PM
Bruce do you work for the RNC???
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | June 26, 2007 7:44 PM
[quote]
Bruce, correction, the donations by journalists were actually 9 to 1 in favor of liberal causes and candidates, not 7 to 1.
Posted by: John D | June 26, 2007 12:24 PM
[/quote]
Got a link that will back up your claim, or are you just making up stuff as you go along?
Posted by: BC | June 27, 2007 11:45 AM