Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)

In one of the most foolish and surprising foreign policy speeches ever heard on the Senate floor, Richard Lugar has effectively advocated surrender in Iraq.

“Our continuing absorption with military activities in Iraq is limiting our diplomatic assertiveness there and elsewhere in the world,” Lugar said.

“Our political timeline will not support a rational course adjustment in Iraq, unless such an adjustment is initiated very soon.”

Lugar declared there’s not enough time for the surge–the counterinsurgency strategy devised by General David Petraeus to secure and pacify Baghdad and Anbar province–to work. 

“A diplomatic offensive is likely to be easier in the context of a tactical drawdown of U.S. troops in Iraq,” Lugar said.

“A drawdown would increase the chances of stimulating greater economic and diplomatic assistance for Iraq from multilateral organizations and European allies, who have sought to limit their association with an unpopular war.”

Does Lugar really believe eliminating al-Qaeda in Iraq isn’t necessary and they would allow humanitarian aid and diplomacy to thrive? Does Lugar believe diplomacy with Iran is successfully stopping them from developing a nuclear weapon and would stop them from meddling in Iraqi affairs?

While Lugar acknowledges that the security strategy is working and probably could achieve its goals he accepts as a given “the short period framed by our own domestic political debate.” Can’t Lugar alter the domestic debate by demonstrating that the new security strategy has a chance and must be given time to work?

David Kilcullen writes at Small Wars Journal:

On June 15th we kicked off a major series of division-sized operations in Baghdad and the surrounding provinces. As General Odierno said, we have finished the build-up phase and are now beginning the actual “surge of operations.” I have often said that we need to give this time. That is still true. But this is the end of the beginning: we are now starting to put things onto a viable long-term footing.

These operations are qualitatively different from what we have done before. Our concept is to knock over several insurgent safe havens simultaneously, in order to prevent terrorists relocating their infrastructure from one to another, and to create an operational synergy between what we’re doing in Baghdad and what’s happening outside. Unlike on previous occasions, we don’t plan to leave these areas once they’re secured. These ops will run over months, and the key activity is to stand up viable local security forces in partnership with Iraqi Army and Police, as well as political and economic programs, to permanently secure them. The really decisive activity will be police work, registration of the population and counterintelligence in these areas, to comb out the insurgent sleeper cells and political cells that have “gone quiet” as we moved in, but which will try to survive through the op and emerge later. This will take operational patience, and it will be intelligence-led, and Iraqi government-led. It will probably not make the news (the really important stuff rarely does) but it will be the truly decisive action.

When we speak of “clearing” an enemy safe haven, we are not talking about destroying the enemy in it; we are talking about rescuing the population in it from enemy intimidation. If we don’t get every enemy cell in the initial operation, that’s OK. The point of the operations is to lift the pall of fear from population groups that have been intimidated and exploited by terrorists to date, then win them over and work with them in partnership to clean out the cells that remain–as has happened in Al Anbar Province and can happen elsewhere in Iraq as well.

The “terrain” we are clearing is human terrain, not physical terrain. It is about marginalizing al Qa’ida, Shi’a extremist militias, and the other terrorist groups from the population they prey on. . . . [B]ecause [the enemy] needs the population to act in certain ways in order to survive, we can asphyxiate him by cutting him off from the people. And he can’t just “go quiet” to avoid that threat. He has either to come out of the woodwork, fight us and be destroyed, or stay quiet and accept permanent marginalization from his former population base. That puts him on the horns of a lethal dilemma (which warms my heart, quite frankly, after the cynical obscenities these gang members have inflicted on the innocent Iraqi non-combatant population). That’s the intent here. . . . Of course, we still go after all the terrorist and extremist leaders we can target and find, and life has become increasingly “nasty, brutish, and short” for this crowd. But we realize that this is just a shaping activity in support of the main effort, which is securing the Iraqi people from the terrorists, extremist militias, and insurgents who need them to survive.

Is there a strategic risk involved in this series of operations?

Absolutely. Nothing in war is risk-free. We have chosen to accept and manage this risk, primarily because a low-risk option simply will not get us the operational effects that the strategic situation demands. We have to play the hand we have been dealt as intelligently as possible, so we’re doing what has to be done. . . .

Personally, I think we are doing reasonably well and casualties have been lower so far than I feared. Every single loss is a tragedy. But so far, thank God, the loss rate has not been too terrible: casualties are up in absolute terms, but down as a proportion of troops deployed (in the fourth quarter of 2006 we had about 100,000 troops in country and casualties averaged 90 deaths a month; now we have almost 160,000 troops in country but deaths are under 120 per month, much less than a proportionate increase, which would have been around 150 a month). And last year we patrolled rarely, mainly in vehicles, and got hit almost every time we went out. Now we patrol all the time, on foot, by day and night with Iraqi units normally present as partners, and the chances of getting hit are much lower on each patrol. We are finally coming out of the “defensive crouch” with which we used to approach the environment, and it is starting to pay off.

It will be a long, hard summer, with much pain and loss to come, and things could still go either way. But the population-centric approach is the beginning of a process that aims to put the overall campaign onto a sustainable long-term footing. The politics of the matter then can be decisive, provided the Iraqis use the time we have bought for them to reach the essential accommodation.

All this may change. These are long-term operations: the enemy will adapt and we’ll have to adjust what we’re doing over time. Baq’ubah, Arab Jabour and the western operations are progressing well, and additional security measures in place in Baghdad have successfully tamped down some of the spill-over of violence from other places. The relatively muted response (so far) to the second Samarra bombing is evidence of this. Time will tell, though.

Serious people seriously explain what’s happening on the ground in Iraq and explain the surge specifically as it plays out. If you wait for news from the mainstream media or listen to the bloviating politicians it will be impossible to learn the facts of progress in Iraq. You will only here of massive bombings but nothing of U.S. Military and coalition forces results.

An honorable mention for Moonbat goes to George Voinovich (R-OH) who echoed Lugar’s call for withdrawal.

“If everyone knows we’re leaving, it will put the fear of God in them.”

Clearly Senator Voinovich is not dealing with reality when Jihadists kill so they can meet their God and collect 72 virgins on the way to hell.

Lugars comments set off cheers amongst Democrats who want to surrender immediately. Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) hailed:

“When we finally end this war — and the history books are written — I believe that Sen. Lugar’s words . . . could be remembered as a turning point.”

Turning point to what, defeat?

Retired General Jack Keane told the New York Sun last week,

“The tragedy of these efforts is we are on the cusp of potentially being successful in the next year in a way that we have failed in the three-plus preceding years, but because of this political pressure, it looks like we intend to pull out the rug from underneath that potential success.” 

Moonbat is a special feature of Liberally Conservative and posted each Saturday. For previous awards visit Moonbat Awards.

As we discussed yesterday House Representative Mike Pence (R-IN) has introduced legislation to stop Democrats from limiting talk radio and stopping the likes of Rush Limbaugh.

The amendment to the Financial Services Appropriations bill prohibits funds from being used by the Federal Communications Commission to impose the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters. The amendment passed 309-115.

Pence’s remarks on the victory are below:

“Today the House of Representatives affirmed that freedom will continue to reign on the airwaves of America. Thanks to the support of 308 of my colleagues, Congress has ensured that the Fairness Doctrine will remain in the grave for now. This was a resounding victory for free speech.

“However, the fight for freedom on the American airwaves is not over. With many still hoping to resurrect this archaic doctrine of unfairness, we must continue to stay on the offense. Tonight I will introduce the ‘Broadcaster Freedom Act’ to ensure that the victory we experienced on the House floor today extends to future generations.

“I thank all my colleagues, especially the Republican leadership in the House for delivering this resounding victory for the freedom of speech.”

In Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in by a  5-4 majority that

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Barack Obama (D-IL) were busy at predominately African-American Howard University race-baiting over the ruling, which they implied overturned the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision. That conclusion is far-fetched and reaching.

Clinton said the decision “turned the clock back” on history, and her competitors agreed.

Obama spoke of civil rights leaders who fought for Brown v. Board of Education and other precedents curbed by the high court. “If it were not for them,” he said, “I would not be standing here.”

Joe Biden (D-DE) declared, “They have turned the court upside down.”

In both the Seattle and Louisville districts, school planners were reassigning kids from their neighborhood schools to new ones based on racial composition, even if it was involuntary.

The schools argued that the diversity test established by 2003′s Grutter v. Bollinger decision allowed them to sort in this way — i.e., that their programs yielded educational and social benefits.

Chief Justice Roberts argued that these efforts were invalid because the districts “have not carried their heavy burden of showing that the interest they seek to achieve justifies the extreme measures they have chosen — discriminating among individual students based on race.”

Grutter said schools must “narrowly tailor” programs to serve a “compelling interest” based on a “highly individualized, holistic review.”

The Brown precedent, that ruling said it is unconstitutional to deny students opportunities based on government enforced racial segregation.

“Diversity,” in of itself, does little or nothing to improve student performance. The best way to achieve greater racial diversity in schools is through the freedom to choose either public or private schools with vouchers, scholarships or tax credits.

Obama criticized the “No Child Left Behind” policy as a failure. Possibly any failure is in the fight that public schools promote to continue their failure at educating students and admitting that choice and private institutions are, in many cases, better.

Liberals should leave race out of the election, quit baiting minorities and discuss why the current Democrat majority is a failure and leaving America behind. Republicans have done no better and politicians need to wake up; unfortunately both parties have overdosed on power.

Illinois State Senator Kirk Dillard’s phone is ringing off the hook these days, and not in a good way. Mr. Dilliard is a Republican, and until April he was the chairman of the DuPage County GOP, one of the party’s strongest political organizations in the state. That’s why many were surprised to see Mr. Dillard featured prominently in a new television ad praising Senator Barack Obama.

“Sen. Obama worked on some of the deepest issues we had and was successful in a bipartisan way,” Mr. Dillard says in the ad, which began airing in Iowa this week.

“Republican legislators respected Sen. Obama. His negotiation skills and an ability to understand both sides would serve the country very well.”

Mr. Dillard’s friendship with Mr. Obama is well known, but some Illinois Republicans are questioning whether Mr. Dillard went too far in taking such a prominent role promoting Mr. Obama’s candidacy.

Frank Watson, the Republican leader in the Illinois state Senate, says Mr. Dillard “is a leader in the Republican Party, and I think maybe that’s a step beyond where he should have gone.”

Others have been less kind, calling Mr. Dillard’s appearance in the Obama ad a ploy for publicity and “a disgrace.”

Former Republican Senate President James “Pate” Philip summed up his feelings about Mr. Dillard’s actions this way: “To say I was disappointed in him would be an understatement.”

Mr. Dillard doesn’t understand what all the fuss is about, nor does he appear to appreciate the criticism, blaming the flurry of calls to his office on “ultra-right committeemen” and “agitators out there who spanked these guys into a frenzy.”

Mr. Dillard says he remains a “Republican stalwart” who is backing Arizona Senator John McCain for President. But in language reminiscent of the kind that has often gotten the original Maverick into trouble with his party, Mr. Dillard told the Chicago Tribune: “My caucus should thank me for the last 48 hours of media attention, whether they realize it or not.”

Dillard supports McCain and does an ad for Barack Obama and claims to be a Republican with no claim as a Conservative. Indeed!

Demonstrate to Mr. Dillard you’re a “Conservative Agitator”:

Illinois Senator Kirk Dillard - 217.782.8148 – senator@kdillard.com

Source: Tom Bevan at OpinionJournal’s Political Diary [Subscription]