Keith D. Milby :: blog

I recently sent an email to Senator Lugar, my home state senator. Well I received a response to said email today and thought I would share it.

It was certainly nice of him and his staff to take the time to put this letter together, but I still don’t buy it and I still won’t be voting to send him back to Washington.

If you are a conservative Republican out there looking to unseat this ol’ timer from office, I would be interested in listening to what you have to say and possibly supporting you in the next election. FWIW!

Below are scans of the actual letter if you would like to take a look:
Letter from Senator Lugar Page 1
Letter from Senator Lugar Page 2
Letter from Senator Lugar Page 3

July 16, 2007

Mr. Keith Milby
***************************
Indianapolis, indiana *****

Dear Mr. Milby:
Thank you for contacting me. I appreciate knowing your thoughts about immigration reform, border security and the Iraq war.

I share your support for increased border security and voted last year to pass the Secure Fence Act of 2006. This legislation authorizes the construction of approximately 700 miles of double-layered fencing at specified locations along the almost 2,000-mile southwest U.S. international border with Mexico.

In addition to improving border security, I believe that the status quo is not acceptable and that our immigration policies should be updated in a comprehensive way to provide some realistic resolution to the status of undocumented immigrants living in this country. On June 28th, unable to bring debate to a close, Majority Leader Harry Reid pulled a bipartisan compromise immigration proposal from the Senate Floor. At this point, it is unclear if the Majority Leader will bring this measure back to the Floor for consideration.

I also noted your comments about U.S. policy in Iraq.

Initial assessments from General Petraeus indicate that there has been some progress in tamping down violence in Iraq. More security improvements in the coming months may be achieved. But the critical assumption of our current strategy in Iraq is that military progress can be translated into sustainable political accommodation among rival Iraqi factions.

I see no evidence that leaders of Iraqi factions are willing to make the compromises necessary to achieve this accommodation and solidify a functioning government and society, even if we continue to reduce violence in iraq. The Iraqi parliament struggles even to achieve a quorum because many leaders
refuse to attend. We have seen overt feuds between members of the Iraqi government, including Prime Minister Maliki and Vice President Tariq al-ashimi, who did not speak to each other for the entire month of April. The Shia-led government is bottling up money budgeted for Sunni provinces and often failing to deliver food rations to Sunni towns. And Iraqi leaders have resisted de-Baathification reform, the conclusion of an oil law, and effective measures to prevent oil smuggling and other corrupt practices. Many Iraqi factions and sub-factions are heavily invested in violence, and a temporary reduction in killing is irrelevant to their long-term agenda of asserting their will in Iraq.

Mr. Keith Milby
Page 2

In short, few Iraqis have demonstrated that they want to be Iraqis. American manpower cannot keep the lid on the violence indefinitely. U.S. strategy must adjust to these realities. At a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January 2007, we heard from former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who recalled a half century of U,S. involvement in the Middle East. He recalled that this history is not accidental. We have been heavily involved in this region because we have enduring, vital interests at stake.

First, we must prevent Iraq or any piece of its territory from being used as a safe haven or training ground for terrorists or a repository for weapons of mass destruction. Second, we must prevent the disorder and sectarian violence in Iraq from upsetting wider regional stability; such upheaval could topple friendly governments, expand refugee flows, close the Persian Gulf to shipping, or destroy key oil facilities - with disastrous results for the world economy. Third, we must prevent Iranian domination of the region, which would pose challenges to our regional allies and have uncertain consequences for weapons proliferation, terrorism, and the security of israel. Fourth, we must limit the loss of U.S. credibility in the region and throughout the world.

In my view, the current surge strategy is not an effective means of protecting these interests. Its prospects for success are too dependant on the actions of others who do not share our agenda. It relies on military power to achieve goals it cannot achieve. It distances allies we need for any regional diplomatic effort. 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.

A total withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq also fails to meet these vital interests. It would compound the risk of a wider Shia-Sunni regional war and of conflict between Turkey and Kurdish forces. It would expose Iraqis who have worked with us to retribution and increase destabilizing refugee flows. And it would be a signal that America was abandoning efforts to prevent Iraqi territory from being used as a terrorist base. Military experts have also maintained that a carefully planned withdrawal that would preserve as much American equipment as possible would take well-over six months to complete.

Given these dynamics, it is imperative that we begin now to shift to a sustainable military posture in iraq. Our security interests call for a down-sizing and redeployment of U.S. military forces to more sustainable positions in Kuwait or nearby states, the Kurdish territories, or defensible locations in Iraq outside of urban zones. All of these options have certain limitations, but some level of U.S. military presence would improve the odds that we could respond to terrorist threats, protect oil flows, help deter a regional war, and continue to deliver economic assistance, without having to interpose U.S. troops between Iraqi factions.

Simultaneously, we should launch a multi-faceted diplomatic offensive that pushes adversarial states and terrorist groups to adjust to us. A first step would be the establishment of a permanent forum open to all parties in the Middle East, as well as the United States, European Union, and other interested parties.
 
Mr. Keith Milby
Page 3

We must re-focus our Iraq policy on realistic assessments of what can be achieved. Given the requirements of military planners, the stress on our combat forces, and our own domestic political timelier, it is time to implement a thoughtful Plan B.

Thank you, again, for contacting me.

Sincerely,

Richard G. Lugar
United States Senator
RGL/cgd

This entry was posted on Friday, July 27th, 2007 at 7:34 pm and is filed under Opinions, Politics, RINO's, War on Terror. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.