U.S. Senator Dick Lugar

U.S. Sen. Dick Lugar gave the following speech on July 12, 2007, at the 2020 Vision’s 2nd Annual National Summit on Energy Security at the National Press Club:

Senator Lugar giving a speech at the 2020 Vision 2nd Annual National Summit on Energy Security.

I am honored to receive the first Energy Security Leadership Award from the 2020 Vision Education Fund, and I am particularly touched that my friend Jim Woolsey is here to present it to me. For many years, Jim has been a source of wise counsel for me. He continues to provide outstanding leadership on energy security and many other issues. When Jim and I wrote about cellulosic ethanol in Foreign Affairs magazine back in 1999, few people had ever heard of it. Even fewer people would have thought that making fuel from switchgrass would one day be a central message of a President’s State of the Union address or that a large mandate for the fuel would be a point of bipartisan consensus in the Senate.

I appreciate the opportunity to be here with so many leaders who are thinking creatively about our energy situation. I congratulate 2020 Vision and the CNA Corporation for bringing together such a distinguished group to discuss this vital topic. As people who are already engaged in the trench warfare that often accompanies energy policy debates, you know the many economic, environmental, and security benefits that would come from movement toward much greater use of renewable fuels. Of all the reasons, however, none is more pressing than the situation in the Middle East.

On June 25, I delivered a speech on the Senate floor in which I argued that the United States must transition to a more sustainable strategy in Iraq that is focused on our vital interests in the Middle East region. In my judgment, neither the Iraqi government, nor leaders of major factions have demonstrated the will or even the intent to reach a broad political accommodation that would stabilize Iraq. Most Shia groups, long suppressed and persecuted by Saddam have little interest in sharing authority with outnumbered Sunnis. Meanwhile Sunni factions still believe they can reclaim power. After decades of dominating Iraq, many Sunnis are convinced that they have the capacity and the right to rule their country, or at least large sections of it.

Most Iraqi factions and sub-factions are taking a long view. For their purposes, the timetables and benchmarks debated in the U.S. Congress are irrelevant. As we have focused on what steps must occur during the next few months, the Iraqis understand that it will take years for the power struggle in Iraq to play itself out.

The heroism and sacrifice of our troops may well preserve the lives of some Iraqis for some period of time. But the evidence of the last 18 months -- and especially the last 6 months -- suggests that Iraqi leaders are playing for keeps. It also suggests that Iraqi leaders cannot control all the members of their factions.

In this context, the military outcome of President Bush’s surge policy appears to have little relevance to the end result in Iraq. The surge has achieved some security gains, and it may achieve more. But the theory behind the surge was to create a short-term reduction in violence that would give Iraqi leaders the breathing space to make compromises. Our sacrifice will have minimal benefit if hard won security gains cannot be translated into political accommodation among Iraqis in a reasonable time period.

Those who are arguing for the surge to continue must do more than voice support for the troops or an ill-defined concept of victory. They must do more than announce faith in our commanders or cite instances of progress on the ground. They must explain how and why Iraqis who have demonstrated for the last six months that they are committed to sectarian and tribal agendas will give up their goals and embrace political pluralism and accommodation on a rapid timetable.

The effects of our four-and-a-half-year intervention in Iraq are weighing heavily on our military capabilities and our diplomatic standing. The surge distances allies that we will need for an indispensable regional diplomatic effort. Its failure, without a careful transition to a back-up policy would intensify our loss of credibility. It also uses resources that cannot be employed in other ways to secure our objectives.

But having come to the conclusion that our policy in Iraq is unsustainable and counterproductive, I would underscore that Iraq and its impact on the Middle East are vitally important. Consequently, we must not withdraw wholesale from Iraq as some opponents of the President have suggested. A precipitous withdrawal would compound the risks of a wider regional conflict stimulated by Sunni-Shia tensions. It would also be a severe blow to U.S. standing in the region that could reduce the willingness of Middle East nations to cooperate with us on shared interests. It would expose Iraqis who have worked with us to retribution, increase the chances of destabilizing refugee flows, and undercut many economic and development projects currently underway in Iraq. It would also be a signal that the United States was abandoning efforts to prevent Iraqi territory from being used as a terrorist base.

Our security interests call for a downsizing and re-deployment of U.S. military forces to more sustainable positions in Iraq or the Middle East. Numerous locations for temporary or permanent military bases have been suggested, including Kuwait or other nearby states, the Kurdish territories, or defensible locations in Iraq outside of urban areas. All of these options come with problems and limitations. But some level of American military presence would improve the odds that we could respond to terrorist threats, protect oil flows, and help deter a regional war. It would also reassure friendly governments that the United States is committed to Middle East security. A re-deployment would allow us to continue training Iraqi troops and delivering economic assistance in the short run, but it would end the U.S. attempt to interpose ourselves between Iraqi sectarian factions.

Achieving a sustainable policy in Iraq will require planning to begin now. Any re-deployment of troops and re-adjustment of objectives will be implemented in a dynamic environment. The location, size, pace, and composition of re-deployments will depend on diplomatic results, the status of our armed forces, refugee flows, and conditions in Iraq.

The Administration also must begin a diplomatic offensive to repair alliances, to confer status on a regional diplomatic forum, and to generate our basing options in the region. If we have not made substantial diplomatic progress by the time our re-deployment begins, our options will be severely constrained and we will be guessing at a viable course in a rapidly evolving environment.

Diplomacy cannot be disassociated from other elements of power, including military force, which is why I believe that the United States requires a troop presence in the region. The military element would allow us to respond to terrorist threats or dangerous contingencies and it would dissuade adventurism in the region. But we must understand the limits and risks of military power far better than we understood them when we invaded Iraq.

In my judgment, what is needed is a consistent diplomatic forum related to Iraq that is open to all parties in the Middle East. The purpose of the forum would be to improve transparency of national interests so that neighboring states and other actors avoid missteps. I believe it would be in the self-interest of every nation in the region to attend such meetings, as well as the United States, EU representatives, or other interested parties. Such a forum could facilitate more regular contact with Syria and Iran with less drama and rhetoric. The existence of a predictable and regular forum in the region would be especially important for dealing with refugee problems, regulating borders, exploring development initiatives, and preventing conflict between the Kurds and Turks.

Given the challenges we face in the Middle East, the consistency of our high level contacts there has long been inadequate. Secretary Rice has made heroic efforts recently to invigorate diplomacy in some areas of the Middle East. But much more is required.

I am not seeking to minimize the frequent intransigence of governments in the region. We have extreme differences with Syria, Iran, Hamas, and other entities in the Middle East. But too often during the Bush Administration, diplomacy has been undermined by a refusal to speak to adversarial governments. This has limited our diplomatic opportunities and often separated us from allies.

A consistent forum in the Middle East is particularly salient, because that region suffers from conspiracy theories, corruption, and the opaque policies of non-democratic governments. We should be meeting with states on a constant basis and encouraging them to meet with each other as a means of achieving transparency. Transparency is a fundamental concept of good governance and international relations in the West. It is undergirded by democratic processes and press freedoms. We should not underestimate the degree to which the lack of transparency in the Middle East intensifies risks of conflict and impedes solutions to regional problems. A constant, predictable diplomatic forum would allow countries and groups to keep an eye on one another. Such a forum would make armed incursions more risky for an aggressor. It would provide a means of applying regional peer pressure against bad behavior. It would also complicate the plans of those who would advance destructive sectarian agendas.

In the best case, the President would initiate such a forum in cooperation with the Iraqi government -- a step that would confer greater legitimacy on that government. But he should proceed regardless. If nations or groups decline to attend or place conditions on their participation, their intransigence will be obvious to the other players in the region. Establishing such a forum will take heavy lifting by the President and the Secretary of State. They must enlist the help of friendly regimes in the region to give the forum diplomatic weight and consistent attendance.

A minimum standard for such a forum would be the Six-Party Talks related to North Korea’s nuclear program. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill has done a masterful job of maintaining momentum in the Six-Party Talks despite difficult circumstances. Just as these talks have improved communications in Northeast Asia beyond the issue of North Korea’s nuclear program, stabilizing Iraq could be the occasion for a diplomatic forum that contributes to other Middle East priorities.

At the end of my June 25th speech, I felt it was essential to speak about U.S. oil dependence. I called it one of the “elephants in the room” of U.S. policy in the Middle East. Some who read the speech may have been surprised by the inclusion of this element in an address about a course change in Iraq. But I believe the relevance of our oil addiction to Iraq is inescapable.

Although securing oil supplies was not the proximate motivation for the U.S. intervention in Iraq, Persian Gulf oil is highly relevant to the difficulties associated with extricating ourselves from that country. Having set in motion conditions in Iraq that could threaten regional stability, American and, indeed, global analysts rightly are concerned that if instability spreads it could threaten oil flows. Moreover, the supposed American greed for oil is used as an excuse by a myriad of Middle Eastern propagandists. The oil dependence of the United States and the West is a pillar of Iranian foreign policy.

A credible, well-publicized campaign in the United States to definitively change the oil import equation would reverberate throughout the Middle East. It would be the equivalent of opening a new front in Middle Eastern policy that does not depend on more military expenditures or the good will of any other country. Our dependence on the military to protect oil flows from the Persian Gulf at great expense is analogous to the patient who retains an expensive physician to perform risky and invasive treatments, but refuses to undertake a regime of diet and exercise that would mitigate the detriments to his health.

A national policy that moved us away from oil dependence would be a powerful statement that U.S. interests were unrelated to any conspiracy theories asserting American intent to dominate oil resources in the Middle East. It would improve our ability to function as an honest broker in regional disputes. It would allow us to assign more policy weight to promoting democratic values and advancing core national security interests, such as non-proliferation.

The urgency of moving to oil alternatives was underscored this week by a report of the International Energy Agency. The report stated that world demand for oil is rising faster than expected, despite the high oil prices that have prevailed for the last four years. The IEA predicted that oil supplies would be “extremely tight in five years time,” largely because of the booming demand for oil in rapidly industrializing nations and the inability of non-OPEC oil-producing countries to increase production to meet demand. According to the report, the developing world’s share of global oil consumption will increase from 42 percent to 46 percent by 2012.

In the near future, we will face increasing risk that the world's supply of oil may not be abundant and accessible enough to support continued economic growth in both the industrialized West and in large rapidly growing economies. As we approach the point where the world's oil-hungry economies are competing for insufficient supplies of energy, oil will become an even stronger magnet for conflict and threats of military action.

A successful effort to reduce U.S. consumption of oil and introduce alternatives into our transportation infrastructure would help reduce pressure on the global supply of oil. It would also serve as a model for other nations of what could be achieved.

There is no shortage of urgent energy and environmental projects that should be undertaken by our government and our nation. This conference will discuss many of them. But in my judgment, our experience in Iraq and our national security difficulties in the Middle East place a national program to reduce oil consumption at the very top of this list.

Many options exist for rapid progress in reducing our Persian Gulf oil interests, but I would emphasize two. First, President Bush or his successor could establish the national goal of making competitively-priced biofuels available to every motorist in America. Such an accomplishment would transform our transportation sector and cut our oil import bill. It would require multiple elements, including ensuring that virtually every new car sold in America is a flexible fuel vehicle capable of running on an 85 percent ethanol fuel known as E-85; that at least a quarter of American filling stations have E-85 pumps; and that biofuels production from various sources is expanded to as much as 100 billion gallons a year within the next 15 to 20 years. Such a campaign could achieve the replacement of 6.5 million barrels of oil per day by volume -- the rough equivalent of one third of the oil used in America and one half of our current oil imports. None of these goals are easy, but they are achievable if Presidential advocacy and the weight of the Federal Government are devoted to their realization.

Second, the President could commit to a radical increase in the miles per gallon of America’s auto fleet. The Federal government has numerous tools to make this happen, from direct federal support for research, to government fleet purchasing, to market regulations and incentives.

Incredibly, cars in America today get less mileage per gallon than they did twenty years ago. Meanwhile, hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and fully electric cars are at or nearly at commercialization. Plug-in vehicles would break down today’s division between electric power and transportation fuels, thus allowing for domestic clean coal and renewable power to replace foreign oil. Yet there is not enough incentive for consumers to buy them or producers to make them on the mass scale necessary. For fiscal year 2008, the Administration requested just $176 million for new vehicle technology research – an amount that was less than what was requested five years ago. Given that other developed nations have made great strides in improving fuel economy, this is fertile ground for rapid improvement. In fact, achievements on this front largely would be a matter of generating and sustaining political will that has, thus far, been disappointing.

If passed by the House and enacted by the President, the energy bill approved by the Senate last month would be a first step toward breaking our oil dependence. Yet we cannot allow the passage of one bill to mislead us into thinking that the job is done. Long term success requires constant high-level attention and sustained public demand that elected leaders implement meaningful policies to reduce oil dependence.

Many of the groups represented today have been stalwart advocates of bipartisan energy solutions inside the Beltway and beyond. Our nation needs you to continue vigorous efforts to strengthen alternative energy coalitions, engage with industry and entrepreneurs, and increase public support for achieving an optimistic vision of our energy future.

###