A total withdrawal from Iraq also fails to meet our security interests. Such a withdrawal would compound the risks of a wider regional conflict stimulated by Sunni-Shia tensions.So let's look at what Senator Lugar is actually proposing in his speech -- the four goals of his new policy of redeployment, and if they'd be accomplished by giving up on the surge that has only just started.
First, we have an interest in preventing Iraq or any piece of its territory from being used as a safe haven or training ground for terrorists or as a repository or assembly point for weapons of mass destruction.If we redeploy our forces and concentrate our efforts on training Iraqis, we will be immediately be ceding huge parts of Iraq to al-Qaida and Shia extremists. They will be able to get a firmer foothold and will be more difficult to fight, not less. If we have learned anything from the war so far it is that you can't achieve your goals from afar, via air power or long distance raids. Clear and release does not work in an asymmetrical war - the terrorists hide until we leave, then come back stronger than ever. Clear and hold, the new policy that we have switched to under the surge, is the only way to develop stability until the Iraqis can take over.
Second, we have an interest in preventing the disorder and sectarian violence in Iraq from upsetting wider regional stability.Redeploying the majority of our forces out of Iraq is going to accomplish this how, exactly? The Sunni (al Qaida) and Shia terrorists that we are hunting down now in Iraq as part of the surge are the instigators that Lugar is referring to. Iran is sponsoring them both, though they are of different sects, in order to create the instability that Lugar fears will spread. Their intention is to export it to other countries - and have already done so, in Lebanon and the Gaza strip. Getting out of their way is supposed to help create stability? Or is Lugar subtly suggesting we go after Iran militarily to stop them all? Somehow I don't think so...
Third, we have an interest in preventing Iranian domination of the region.See above. If we leave Iraq, and redeploy the majority of our forces to Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, we are going back to the posture that we were in before the Iraq War. The only difference would be that Iran would be freer to enter Iraq in large numbers at will - and they intend to. We have to fight in and from Iraq for the foreseeable future to keep Iran at bay and to keep Iraq sovereign. In addition, moving our troops back to the land of Mecca and Medina will only inflame the regional situation, not make it better. Remember one of Osama bin Laden's reasons for 9/11?
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.We're never going to be "credible" to our enemies - and apart from Israel, the region Lugar is referring to is full of them. Having said that, the way to ensure our credibility to the rest of the world as both a force for peace and a deterrent to aggressors is to stay committed and resolute against our enemies and finish the job, even if the public gets impatient. Lugar, the Democrats, and others like them only help the enemies' propaganda war against us. In a larger context, our enemies are hoping that Lugar and his friends can do what they cannot do militarily - defeat us and throw us out of the region.
Richard Lugar has been a disappointment for many years. A former Democrat, he accomplished nothing during his term as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He is a pawn of the State Department and CIA bureaucracy -- nothing more, and perhaps a lot less - as this speech clearly shows.
Opponents of the war are better off using short sound bites. When they deliver larger messages, such as this speech by Lugar, it makes it easier to see that achieving the goals for the region that these "honorable and distinguished" opponents of the war propose are impossible using the methods that they suggest.
Update: I wrote this post before receiving notice that the Washington Post had supposedly published Lugar's speech on Iraq in this morning's edition. When I looked at what the Post actually did, however, I realized that they only printed excerpts that supported their own (and the Democrats) positions on Iraq. You know the drill -- it's wrong, we've failed, and it's time to go and let diplomacy handle it. Oh, and Israel's one of the root causes of all of our troubles. In fact, not one of the quotes that I've included in this post are in today's Washington Post, although once you get past the self-flagellation in the speech regarding today's political climate they are at the core of his argument for a new strategy. However, the Post version does serve a useful purpose. It shows that Lugar's position is not the culmination of any kind of new thinking on his part. He has been against the Iraq war for a while now and he's always been against the surge that he now concludes has failed, one week after it officially started. Instead, the Post excerpt shows that Lugar's position is simply a glorified rehash of the Iraq Study Group report. Even worse, in the part of the speech that the Post doesn't cover, Lugar lists four goals that cannot be realistically achieved by doing what he is suggesting our forces do. The senator's position can be summed up as follows: a doctrine of self-scolding, retreat, and surrender, with a healthy dose of diplomatic busy work for good measure. If Lugar's enunciated goals aren't just rhetoric, and he really wants us to achieve in the region what he outlines in his full speech, it would necessitate us returning to the interior of Iraq in force in the near future -- in effect leaving, turning around, and coming right back in.
