TIPPING POINT:

Mark my words:  Remarks made on the Senate floor by Republican Senator Richard Lugar (Ind) yesterday has marked a historic tipping-point for the Iraq war that will reverberate, if not in July, than in September.  Count on it. 

According to the AP:

The unusually blunt assessment deals a political blow to Bush, who has relied heavily on GOP support to stave off anti-war legislation.

It also comes as a surprise.  Most Republicans have said they were willing to wait until September to see if Bush's recently ordered troop buildup in Iraq was working...

Only a few Republicans have broken ranks and called for a change in course or embraced Democratic proposals ordering troops home by a certain date.  As the top Republican and former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Lugar's critique could provide political cover for more Republicans wanting to challenge Bush on the war.

Lugar's remarks, which are fully reproduced by Truthout.org provide a sweeping indictment, not just on Bush's failed policies and flawed "surge" plan, but on partisans on both sides who have used the war debate to score political points:

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.

And goes on to point out:

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.

Lugar points out, in great detail and with wonderful eloquence, three factors that are converging to make it almost impossible for the United States to achieve the goals its president has demanded in Iraq.

The first, as he puts it, is that "Iraqis don't want to be Iraqis."

He reminds his colleagues and Bush--to whom his remarks were addressed--that in recent months, the Iraqi parliament has voted for a withdrawal of American forces and condemned security walls that he says were a reasonable response to neighborhood violence.  But he also points out--firmly--that the parliament seldom even meets with a full quorum for votes, and that feuds between various factions have resulted in even the prime minister and one of his vice-presidents not even speaking to one another for weeks at a time. 

Further, he points out little-known facts, such as the propensity of the Shiite-majority government to withhold not only desperately needed funds and repairs to infrastructure such as power and sewer lines from Sunni areas--but food rations as well.  So it is little wonder that the parliament is making little progress on benchmarks such as de-Baathification and fair distribution of oil royalties.

He also makes it clear that the Iraqis seem willing to take years to implement changes that the Americans believe should only take months, because few if any of the politicians wants to expose himself to risk.

And further, so many of the factions who are wresting control from one another on the local levels have done so with violence to which they have become addicted.  As he put it, "We have the worst of both worlds in Iraq," meaning that even those leaders who would take a stand in parliament or at least work furiously behind the scenes to effect change--have no control over the local factions who are warring among themselves.

And even I hadn't considered a key point made by Sen. Lugar, and that is that even if benchmarks WERE achieved in Parliament:

...Most can be undermined or reversed by a contrary edict of the Iraqi government, a decision by a faction to ignore agreements, or the next terrorist attack or wave of sectarian killings.  American manpower cannot keep the lid on indefinitely.  The anticipation that our training operations could produce an effective Iraqi army loyal to a cohesive central government is still just a hopeful plan for the future.

Sectarian factionalism just will not be able to be controlled from the top, he states.

Second, Sen. Lugar actually uses the word "dire" to describe the ongoing strain on the American military made by this administration's Iraq policy, and warns that if the president and his advisors decide to drag this thing out until he leaves office--as has been intimated by them and insisted upon by those of us out here in the hinterlands--it could break the military to such an extent that it could take "generations" to repair the damage.  

He gives some brutal statistics about how few young people even want to serve in the military now, after four years of war, as well as the most gung-ho out there--United States Military Academy at West Point graduates--most of whom have traditionally gone on to make careers out of the military and fill out the ranks of multiple-star generals...but who now are bailing out at an alarming rate once their five-year commitment to the Army is up.

He also details Army scrambling to fill ranks with convicted felons, high-school drop-outs, and older recruits, even as recruiters put in 70-hour workweeks to find them.

Meanwhile, he chastises the Bush administration for its exhausting policies of forcing worn-out troops back into combat before they've even rested from the last deployment, and of demanding that, once in a combat theater, they remain for months and months at a time, SOMETHING NOT EVEN REQUIRED OF THE WORLD WAR II TROOPS.

He discusses the stresses on equipment and the hemorraghing of billions of dollars that it has taken to sustain Bush's war.

And third, he points out that, as much as the Bush administration may want to think they can cram their ill-advised and ill-executed policies down the throats of the American people for as long as they remain in office, Lugar makes it clear that the political climate will not only not stand for it, but will grow so rancorous and combative that, in the end, our "Plan B" withdrawal will be as poorly-planned and carried out as the invasion and occupation was, which would be disastrous for us as well as the Iraqis.

His point is that a course change is necessary NOW, before the presidential campaigns get cranked up, because when THAT happens, the arguments on both sides will be clumsy charicatures of what is needed.  In other words, rather than nuance and carefully crafted policy discussion and compromise--there will be the madness of campaign combat painted with broad brushstrokes that will serve no purpose in the end but to further divide the country and leave Iraq hanging.

He also mentions that the military brass, right now, is so absorbed with this damn "surge" strategy and all the politicizing required by the Rove/Cheney/Bush White House to pull it off in time for November '08 elections--that they are not making the necessary "Plan B" CONSTRUCTIVE calculations of what it would really, actually entail to pull out even a third of our troops in an orderly fashion without leaving vast amounts of armaments behind for the various factions to appropriate for their own little wars.

Sen. Lugar does not limit his remarks to Iraq alone.  He places it within the larger--and far more crucial to American interests--context of the entire Middle East, and what we should do to ensure not only that this conflict not spill over into neighboring countries but to address issues equally important, such as the Arab-Israeli conflict.

He lists four major points that must be taken into consideration when deciding what to do about Iraq, from within that context:

1.) Preventing Iraq from becoming a terrorist training ground (which, I might point out, has already happened)

2.) Preventing spillover from Iraq to the region

3.) Preventing Iranian domination of the region and

4.) Limiting the loss of American credibility in the region

And, in so doing, he slams the so-called "surge strategy":

In my judgment, the current surge strategy is not an effective means of protecting these interests.  Its prospects for success are too dependent on the actions of others who do not share our agenda.  It relies on military power to achieve goals that it cannot achieve.  It distances allies that we will need for any regional diplomatic effort.  It's failure, without a careful transition to a back-up policy would intensify our loss of credibility.  It uses tremendous amounts of resources that cannot be employed in other ways to secure our objectives.  And it lacks domestic support that is necessary to sustain a policy of this type.

He also makes a convincing argument against the type of policy expounded by Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson, which is to withdraw all troops from Iraq, period.  Severe loss of credibility in the Middle East is only one problem; perhaps more serious would be the abandonment of the northern Kurds to the aggression from Turkey.  It would also expose those who have worked with us to terrible retribution and exacerbate the refugee problem, which is already severe.  Among other arguments.

He quotes top retired generals who have stated--even if they WANT the U.S. to pull out--that to effectively do so would take months.

But he does take a pointed left-hook JAB at the massive and arrogantly-conceived American embassy that is now under construction to the tune of half a billion dollars.  He says that, clearly, our needs for it have changed since its plans were first drawn up, and that we should consider using it as an "open forum" for all nations of the Middle East--including Iran, Syria, and Turkey, as well as the EU--to openly discuss such problems as dealing with the refugee crises, preventing conflict between the Kurds and Turks, exploring development opportunities, and so on.

He says the Iraq Study Group suggestions are now somewhat dated due to developments that have taken place since the report was submitted, and encourages an updated Iraq Study Group submission that can offer suggestions for dealing with new problems, and looking at different solutions for problems that have developed into deeper areas of conflict.

He addresses constructive ideas for diplomacy in the region, as well as some surprising suggestions for reducing our dependence upon oil in the first place.

And he issues a scathing indictment of Bush's war:

The United States has violated some basic national security precepts during our military engagement in Iraq.  We have overestimated what the military can achieve, we have set goals that are unrealistic, and we have inadequately factored in the braoder regional consequences of our actions.  Perhaps most critically, our focus on Iraq has diverted us from opportunities to change the world in directions that strengthen our national security.

Our struggles in Iraq have placed U.S. foreign policy on a defensive footing and drawn resources from other national security endeavors, including Afghanistan.  With few exceptions, our diplomatic initiatives are encumbered by negative global and regional attitudes toward our combat presence in Iraq.

Sen. Lugar pretty much begs the president and the congress to face these tough and realistic facts NOW, not later, not in September, not during a hot campaign contest, but now.

Boys and girls, this is groundbreaking, earth-shattering stuff.

It has long been murmured and muttered behind the scenes that more Republican congresspeople and senators would begin to back Democratic presentations if they had ranking, powerful Republican members walking point and shielding them from incoming fire from pissy right-wing media and think-tank sources--not to mention a White House known to be vengeful.  The name John Warner has been bandied about as a possible platoon leader.

Senator Lugar's views have apparently been known to the White House, but his going public with them now has caught them by surprise.

You can bet that it was not overlooked by those who have been desperately seeking a way to back out of the Iraq debacle without getting targeted, sniped at, and shot down by their own people.

He has given them that cover.  He has also served notice to the White House that all the little song-and-dance that is being pussy-footed around by various generals, politicians, and Tony Snow, to the effec that September is no big deal after all, that things are just going to take longer and longer and longer than they originally thought, that the American people need to understand that and be patient because victory is just around the corner...will not work.

It won't work in the media, and it won't work with the Democrats and moderate Republicans who have already spoken out, and WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!--it's not even going to work with some very powerful Republican senators and congresspeople, including some conservatives, who have had enough with Bush's war.

I doubt most historical tipping points are seen as such at the time.

But trust me, some day, historians will point to this landmark speech by Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind) as the beginning of the end of Bush's War.