LONGTIME READERS will know that I am, in foreign policy matters, a Lugarist: whence Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) went, so, generally, do I scramble to follow. So I can't let this post from Professor Reynolds pass:
Lugar actually said:
"The costs and risks of continuing down the current path outweigh the potential benefits that might be achieved .... Persisting indefinitely with the surge strategy will delay policy adjustments that have a better chance of protecting our vital interests in the long term."
"A redeployment 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," Lugar said.
A cost-benefit analysis, taking into account the limits of U.S. power and the U.S.'s national interests: how novel. I can see why Reynolds would find Lugar a bit too uppity for his taste.
One could also glean from Lugar's remarks -- if one read them -- that the U.S. lacks the military muscle to stop Iranian troops from entering Iraq, much less Iranian agents, provocateurs, saboteurs, and ne'erdowells. One might also notice that Lugar is not dictating tactics, but overall strategy. Even under the Reynoldsian view, surely, Congress has some right to discuss overall strategy. Or must they simply shut up and fund whatever the President requests?