Follow us on social

Graham

Lindsey Graham melts down, shouts at drone war critics

The South Carolina senator insists that it's just a "matter of time" before terrorists slip into the US and slaughter us.

Analysis | Military Industrial Complex

Yesterday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) was very upset. “It’s just a matter of time until some terrorist group — probably from Afghanistan, maybe from Syria, maybe from Afghanistan, maybe from Somalia — works its way through our southern border to kill a bunch of us,” declared Graham. “America’s threat from radical Islam has gone up, not down, our policies in containing the threat are not working, Afghanistan is a breeding ground for terrorism as I speak, everybody that we work with is being slaughtered and we want to talk about closing GITMO and restricting the drone program.” Graham concluded, “You’re living a dream world!”

Watch it:

While Graham’s outburst was striking in its own right, the testimony that provoked him illuminates how proponents of a drone program that is largely unaccountable for its civilian casualties fall back on emotional talking points about the threat of terrorism rather than grappling with the real national security, economic, humanitarian and legal costs of two decades of war. This goes for their continuing support for the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in Cuba, the offshore prison for GWOT detainees that has served as a propaganda tool for al Qaeda affiliates and the Islamic States of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), too. Half of the witnesses before the committee offered tangible steps to reduce civilian casualties and reassert Congressional authority or war making, far short of surrendering to terrorists as Graham seemed to suggest.

Hina Shamsi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Security Project, urged the committee to “demand that Executive Branch officials testify about their legal and policy justifications for using lethal force in countries where Congress did not authorize it,” “deny funding for unauthorized and unlawful user of force,” and reassert Congressional controls over declaring war.

Radhya Al-Mutawakel, chairperson of Mwatana for Human Rights, a Yemeni human rights organization, called for a review of “the lawfulness and civilian impact of each operation undertaken since the United States began using lethal force in Yemen nearly two decades ago and take a hard look at whether these operations have been at all effective in making anyone safe.”

While those calls for accountability for drone strikes and War on Terror policies that undermine the rule of law and provide propaganda for terrorists seemed to get under Graham’s skin, it might be because the weapons most responsible for civilian atrocities are partially responsible for paying for his 2020 senate campaign.

The second biggest source of campaign contributions supporting his winning 2020 campaign were employees of Lockheed Martin, a major producer of drones.

Graham had at least one witness at the hearing who didn’t throw him into a rage: Retired General John Jumper. Graham asked Jumper, “the drone program, has it been an effective tool in terms of killing terrorists?” To which Jumper responded, “very effective, sir.”

Jumper didn’t disclose in his testimony that, while retired from the Air Force, he served as chairman and CEO of drone manufacturer Leidos from 2012 to 2014, and continued to serve on its board of directors until 2018. (Lockheed owns 50.5 percent of Leidos.)

In 2017, Leidos was awarded a $900 million contract to support the Air Force’s drone program.

But Graham and Jumper’s financial and political ties to the drone industry weren’t considered relevant for disclosure by either of them. Instead, Graham shouted at human rights and civil liberties advocates and said that reviewing the drone program and working to close GITMO is defeatism and, inexplicably, would help terrorists in their efforts to “find a way to kill three million of us.”


Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)(Screengrab/You Tube)
Analysis | Military Industrial Complex
American Special Operations
Top image credit: (shutterstock/FabrikaSimf)

American cult: Why our special ops need a reset

Military Industrial Complex

This article is the latest installment in our Quincy Institute/Responsible Statecraft project series highlighting the writing and reporting of U.S. military veterans. Click here for more information.

America’s post-9/11 conflicts have left indelible imprints on our society and our military. In some cases, these changes were so gradual that few noticed the change, except as snapshots in time.

keep readingShow less
Recep Tayyip Erdogan Benjamin Netanyahu
Top photo credit: President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan (Shutterstock/ Mustafa Kirazli) and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu (Salty View/Shutterstock)
Is Turkey's big break with Israel for real?

Why Israel is now turning its sights on Turkey

Middle East

As the distribution of power shifts in the region, with Iran losing relative power and Israel and Turkey emerging on top, an intensified rivalry between Tel Aviv and Ankara is not a question of if, but how. It is not a question of whether they choose the rivalry, but how they choose to react to it: through confrontation or peaceful management.

As I describe in Treacherous Alliance, a similar situation emerged after the end of the Cold War: The collapse of the Soviet Union dramatically changed the global distribution of power, and the defeat of Saddam's Iraq in the Persian Gulf War reshuffled the regional geopolitical deck. A nascent bipolar regional structure took shape with Iran and Israel emerging as the two main powers with no effective buffer between them (since Iraq had been defeated). The Israelis acted on this first, inverting the strategy that had guided them for the previous decades: The Doctrine of the Periphery. According to this doctrine, Israel would build alliances with the non-Arab states in its periphery (Iran, Turkey, and Ethiopia) to balance the Arab powers in its vicinity (Iraq, Syria, and Egypt, respectively).

keep readingShow less
Havana, Cuba
Top Image Credit: Havana, Cuba, 2019. (CLWphoto/Shutterstock)

Trump lifted sanctions on Syria. Now do Cuba.

North America

President Trump’s new National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM) on Cuba, announced on June 30, reaffirms the policy of sanctions and hostility he articulated at the start of his first term in office. In fact, the new NSPM is almost identical to the old one.

The policy’s stated purpose is to “improve human rights, encourage the rule of law, foster free markets and free enterprise, and promote democracy” by restricting financial flows to the Cuban government. It reaffirms Trump’s support for the 1996 Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, which explicitly requires regime change — that Cuba become a multiparty democracy with a free market economy (among other conditions) before the U.S. embargo will be lifted.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.