The Blue Voice

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Dick Lugar's "antiwar" speech

Duncan "Atrios" Black seems to be as underwhelmed as I am about the news that, gee, Republican Richard Lugar is mildly criticizing the Iraq War:

While I do think it's a positive thing that people like Lugar and Voinovich are speaking out against Bush's neverending war, it still remains the case that they are unlikely to actually try to do anything about it. We all know by now that anything which requires Republicans to do the right thing is bound to fail.

That pretty much sums it up. When I heard about Lugar's new bold truth-telling courageous stand, my thought was, "Big whoop. What's he actually going to do about it?"

But our broken "press corps" loves to see politicians doing something that looks counter-intuitive. And bipartisanship is the higest political virtue for High Broderism. So the press is willing to present Lugar as a Serious Statesman on the basis of his pitiful pseudo-antiwar speech this week.

Let's also remember that disgust with the war continues to rise, with two-thirds or more of the American people against it now. In the CNN poll for June 22-24, 67% of the public said they opposed the war, only 30% said they supported it. With numbers like that, it's not exactly a sign of bold leadership for Lugar to come out publicly and make noises like he also may be against the war.

One key measure of whether a member of Congress is serious about getting the US out of the Iraq War is their support for a mandated date for withdrawal.

If Lugar and the rest of the Republican "war critics" don't support that and vote for it in Congress, then their criticisms are more Republican hot air. No one should be conned by these loyal war supporters who do empty posturing for the cameras with their hand-wringing deep concerns and their serious questioning and their thoughtful reflections and the like. If they don't support a deadline for withdrawal, they're just trying to provide themselves and their Party political cover while backing Bush's continued disastrous policies.

Another key measure is their stand on permanent bases. You may recall that John Kerry explicitly stated in one of the campaign debates with Bush in 2004 that he was opposed to permanent US bases in Iraq. Dick Lugar is in favor of them.

The Senator's phony "antiwar" speech is available at his Senate Web site. What a silly crock it is.
This, for instance, is rich: "The current debate on Iraq in Washington has not been conducive to a thoughtful revision of our Iraq policy." Uh, Senator War Supporter, the time to demand being "thoughtful" was when you were supporting the war resolution in 2002! Your brave, courageous voice might have meant something if you were directing it against the crass warmongering and dishonest intelligent claims that your Party and its President were making. It would have been "thoughtful" of you to take immediate action when Bush *violated* your war resolution by invading Iraq without meeting either of the two conditions you voted to impose on him in that resolution.

Oh, I get it. It's opponents of the war he's wisely advising to be "thoughtful":

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.

This would be a ROTFLMAO moment, if the stakes weren't so lethal. How can a loyal Republican war supporter say such a thing with a straight face after the rank fear-mongering and demogoguery his own Party has made their main message for the last six years. How can anyone take this man seriously?

The bravely truth-telling Senator has some vague secret plan to end the war. But it requires - do I even need to bother to say? - the Democrats to shut the hell up about the disaster that the war actually is:

It will also require members of Congress to be receptive to overtures by the President to construct a new policy outside the binary choice of surge versus withdrawal. We don’t owe the President our unquestioning agreement, but we do owe him and the American people our constructive engagement.

This could be a Freudian slip: "constructive engagement" was the label the Reagan administration put on it's do-nothing policy on apartheid in South Africa.

When the Senator gets a tiny bit more specific, he says ... we can't expect our allied Iraqi government to actually accomplish anything measurable:

I suspect that for some Americans, benchmarks are a means of justifying a withdrawal by demonstrating that Iraq is irredeemable. For others, benchmarks represent an attempt to validate our military presence by showing progress against a low fixed standard. But in neither case are benchmark tests addressing our broader national security interests. (emphasis in orginal)

Also, we have to shovel more money to the Army for long-term troop planning, apparently without any Congressional review and decision on the actual strategy those additional troops the Army wants to add will be expected to support:

The Army is asking for $2 billion more this year for recruitment incentives, advertising, and related activities. It needs $13 to $14 billion a year to reset the force to acceptable readiness ratings, and they will need that amount for up to three years after the end of the current operations. The Army needs $52 billion more this year to fill equipment shortages and modernize. These figures do not include the billions of dollars required to implement the planned 65,000 soldier increase in the size of the active force.

Probably the real point of his speech was this, a "moderate" version of the stab-in-the-back accusation that the terrorist-loving Defeatocrats are responsible for all the problems that the Republican administration and our invincible generals encountered in Iraq:

The third factor inhibiting our ability to establish a stable, multi-sectarian government in Iraq is the timetable imposed by our own domestic political process. The President and some of his advisors may be tempted to pursue the surge strategy to the end of his administration, but such a course contains extreme risks for U.S. national security. It would require the President to fight a political rear-guard holding action for more than a year and a half against Congressional attempts to limit, modify, or end military operations in Iraq. The resulting contentiousness would make cooperation on national security issues nearly impossible. It would greatly increase the chances for a poorly planned withdrawal from Iraq or possibly the broader Middle East region that could damage U.S. interests for decades. (my emphasis in bold)

And how can a loyal Republican war supporter like Lugar say something like the following without laughing out loud himself? (Answer: because our sad "press corps" considers him one of those Very Serious Voices on military affairs.)

Third, we have an interest in preventing Iranian domination of the region. The fall of Saddam Hussein’s Sunni government opened up opportunities for Iran to seek much greater influence in Iraq and in the broader Middle East. An aggressive Iran would pose serious challenges for Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and other Arab governments. Iran is pressing a broad agenda in the Middle East with uncertain consequences for weapons proliferation, terrorism, the security of Israel, and other U.S. interests. Any course we adopt should consider how it would impact the regional influence of Iran.

Not a word about the single thing that has most boosted Iran's regional influence since the 1979 Islamic Revolution: the American invasion of Iraq, which has resulted in a pro-Iranian, Shi'a-dominated government taking office in Iraq. An invasion which Lugar himself has loyally supported all along, including now.

And, what would a Republican speech on the Iraq War be without insistence on the importance of our Manly National Will?

Fourth, we have an interest in limiting the loss of U.S. credibility in the region and throughout the world as a result of our Iraq mission. Some loss of confidence in the United States has already occurred, but our subsequent actions in Iraq may determine how we are viewed for a generation.

And this is different from the prowar Republicans how?

He goes on to oppose both a "total" withdrawal and an "immediate withdrawal" which - I'll give the guy a tiny bit of credit here - he defines as six months. I'll also give him credit for specifying that better mileage standards for American automobiles are a necessary step to reduced our dependence on imported oil, which would give the US more flexibility in Middle East policy.

Shutting down the plans for permanent bases? He's for them:

Numerous locations for temporary or permanent military bases have been suggested, including Kuwait or other nearby states, the Kurdish territories, or defensible locations in Iraq outside of urban areas. All of these options come with problems and limitations. But some level of American military presence in Iraq would improve the odds that we could respond to terrorist threats, protect oil flows, and help deter a regional war. It would also reassure friendly governments that the United States is committed to Middle East security. A re-deployment would allow us to continue training Iraqi troops and delivering economic assistance, but it would end the U.S. attempt to interpose ourselves between Iraqi sectarian factions. (my emphasis)

This is another big sign of how phony Lugar's "antiwar" comments are. He wants to reduce the number of US troops somehow someway. But he's in favor of permanent American bases to provide a permanent military presence in Iraq.

We might call his plan one for an "Iraq War with a clean shave".

Tags: iraq war, richard lugar

posted at 4:34:00 PM by Bruce Miller

| +Save/Share | |