What is Lindsey Graham talking about?

November 26, 2007

Having just returned from a Thanksgiving trip to Iraq with John McCain and Joe Lieberman, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) appeared on Fox News yesterday to — you guessed it — hail Bush’s Iraq policy with unrestrained hyperbole.

“[The existing policy is] working amazingly well, beyond my expectations. I think history will judge the surge as probably the most successful counterinsurgency military operation in history.

“Violence is down. Economic activity is up. It’s not just about more troops. It’s how the troops are used. So hats off to General Petraeus and all under his command. You’re making military history and a phenomenal success. I was amazed, really. […]

“Why in the name of heaven would we undercut the most successful military operation in counterinsurgency in American history, maybe world history, because of this idea of putting — capping troop strength, changing the mission, undercutting Petraeus?”

Yes, Graham believes the decline in violence in Iraq to 2005 levels may be the greatest counterinsurgency campaign in the history of the world. Um, yeah.

OK, senator, but what about the fact that this extraordinary and historic surge was intended to meet a series of political benchmarks, and we’ve actually seen reconciliation efforts to backwards this year? Don’t worry, Graham has this covered, too.

“[I]t’s hard to have democracy when people are getting killed in droves. And the better security is going to produce better political results.”

See? All we have to do is stay in Iraq, indefinitely, and wait for the political progress to unfold. Hope is a plan, right?

Let’s briefly review some recent predictions from Graham, who, I might add, is taken quite seriously by the DC media establishment.

* On Sept. 2, Graham said we need not worry about Iraq failing the vast majority of the agreed upon benchmarks for progress, because a major step forward was near. “In a matter of weeks, we’re going to have a major breakthrough in Baghdad on items of political reconciliation — the benchmarks — because the Iraqi people are putting pressure on their politicians,” Graham said. That was nine weeks ago.

* On Sept. 16, Graham set a 90-day deadline for Iraq: “[I]f we don’t see progress on two of the three big issues — oil revenues, de-Baathification, provincial elections — in the next 90 days, it may not happen. And Iraq could be a failed state.” (David Broder hailed Graham’s “realistic” assessment.)

* On Sept. 26, Graham told Time magazine’s editors that unless there was political reconciliation in Iraq within 90 days, Americans should give up hope. “If they don’t deliver in 90 days, I will openly say the chances for political reconciliation are remote,” Graham said, adding, “If they can’t do it by the end of the year, how do you justify a continued presence?”

Apparently, Graham has answered his own question by refuting it — he can justify a continued presence by asserting, without proof, that reconciliation will come if we just wait for it.

I’m sure there’s a rational explanation for why the establishment considers Graham a “serious” person. I just can’t think of it.

Graham’s making a killing re-selling rugs he’s buying from Iraqi merchants at a “have a US soldier stick a gun in his face” discount that got the rugs from looting ethnically cleansed homes in the first place. All his praise should be good for a few more trips to Baghdad before the next election. Trent’s looking for a way to make his buck, Lindsay already has his scam. … Hey, it’s at least as plausible as what Lindsay is saying.

  • he’s considered a “serious” person because he supports the war: that’s really all it takes.

    oh, and he’s considered “serious” because he has no shame.

  • You know it’s bad when you can “hear” the person’s voice – accent and all – when you read his words…such is where I am with Graham, and that is not a happy place.

    I would love for Graham to try to separate this magnificent counter-insurgency tactic from the sectarian cleansing, but I don’t think he can do it. I’d also like to hear what role our military played in that kind of purge, which has resulted in significant drops in violence – but he won’t do that, either, I’m guessing.

    Where is the political reconciliation? Where are the ethnic groups co-existing peacefully?

    How does he explain the further drop in attacks and violence in Basra after the British left? Why should we believe it is necessary for us to stay to keep the violence at bay, when the British didn’t have to?

    I think the answer to “What is Lindsey Graham Talking About?” is Who the Hell Cares?

  • I’ve always thought the growing opposition to the war was very soft, and for the wrong reasons. Namely, that we weren’t “winning,” and if that sentiment could be turned around, support for the war would skyrocket.

    With violence in Iraq on the decline, the Republicans now sniff “victory,” because it’s all in the public perception of what “victory” is. Nobody cares if Graham contradicts himself or what he’s said in the past. It’s all about whether the concept of “victory” can be sold to the gullible American public.

    Nobody cares how much blood and treasure has been wasted, how much carnage and destruction there has been in Iraq, how much opportunity has gone down the drain, or how many crises were caused directly by the war, or indirectly because of neglect, as long as we are “victorious.”

    If we can claim “victory,” all is forgiven, America is great again, and nothing else matters, and the Republicans sense that.

    And I think they are right.

  • Every 2 weeks Graham needs some face time. Why dose he feel the need to go to Iraq so often. Taxpayers have to pay for his frequent visits when you can predict what he is going to say without him ever leaving the states. It’s always pro-Bush. This is all part of his re-election campaign. He and Lieberman are joined at the hip and it boggles the mind why we have to hear from them so often. Graham should have stated “sectarian cleansing has worked. We’ve run out of people to kill and segregating the neighborhoods has really helped”. We’ve bombed the city over 900 times so far this year…way to go Petraeus, bombing neighborhoods gets rid of the whole damn family.
    Without political reconciliation though the time will come when the violence will resume that’s why we put permanent bases there so we can continue this forever. Bush’s cronies aren’t done raping the country yet. Where would we be without suck-ass Graham and Lieberman?

  • He is treated seriously because he was a JAG.

    He deserves credit for actually putting his money where his mouth is. He actually has served which is more than virtually anyone in Congress has done.

    You can’t really blame him for being a politician. After all, politicians LIE. Especially conservative politicians.

    Think about it. You believe in the free market yet you are willing to work for far less money than he could earn in the private sector. Liberals at least can claim there are things more important than money.

    After all, Lott is resigning because it is time for him to cash in on his career. He can stop lying to the public and start lying to his clients.

  • Mr. Wilson – I too respect the fact that Lindsay Graham was a practicing JAG, but that was then, and this is now: Mr. Graham is confused as to what this conflict has been all about, and as such, he has helped all too often to move the goal posts. His hyperbole is hackneyed, and his predictions have been proven wrong time and again. He needs to stop the cheerleading and begin to do his oversight duty as a member of the Senate. -Kevo

  • Senator (name of any Republican) “is confused as to what this conflict has been all about, and as such, he has helped all too often to move the goal posts. His hyperbole is hackneyed, and his predictions have been proven wrong time and again. He needs to stop the cheerleading and begin to do his oversight duty as a member of the Senate.”

    Is that statement not true for EVERY single Republican and an independent from New England?

  • The future of our nation is strangely in the hands of the Sunnis.

    “The Surge is Working” has become the received opinion of the US media. It will be the received opinion until there is some visible change in the situation- casualty figures go way up again. The future of our nation is strangely in the hands of the Iraqis.” (rwcole)

    In January 2005 I made what seemed to be an obvious prediction. I predicted that we could not ever defeat the Sunni insurgency. I predicted that a time would come that we would need to (have to) make accommodation with this fighting force. My favorite line on this subject was from Rummy who said, “It’s not like we can just call up these guys.”

    Well, these guys have not only fought us to a standstill, they, in adherence to their code of honor, consider that they defeated the USA forces and are now willing to deal. We lost to the Sunni insurgency: they won and are now willing to sit at the table with the defeated occupying forces to establish their socio/political future.

    I find this an intriguing point.

    There’s also the silence from the main stream media. I see no mention that the Sunni’s have kept their honor by fighting us to a standstill and that having won, they are entering negotiations and pursuant thereto daily IED attacks have been halved. When we witness our ‘bring-them-on” President smilingly meeting with entities that have heretofore been killing US troops on a daily basis, I get a feeling of visceral disgust for the hypocrisy it entails..

    There’s the Washington/American political angle, not only that we lost, but that the surge arrived as the Anbar/Western Provinces etc (not Baghdad) based Sunnis were claiming victory and it, the surge, had not an iota’s affect on the main reduction in hostilities.

    And there’s the point that we are cooperating and arming the Sunnis (to defeat Al Queda) thus establishing a viable military and political Sunni entity which is in direct opposition to the main purpose of the surge. We surged to allow a national political reconciliation but by accommodating the ‘victorious’ Sunnis we have worked against the national (majority Shia) government.

    I worry for the military because these events could easily backfire. More guns and more Sunni cohesion is a risky strategy.

    I don’t worry about the Cheney/Bush crowd. I would like to see the American voters informed that we in essence have lost the main military pacification objective versus the Sunnis, that the surge did not accomplish its aims and that politically motivated incompetence still rules the lives of our troops.

    ________________________

    My January 2005 prediction:

    The ghost of Arafat will appear from the Sunni side and George B. to his enormous bile-choking displeasure will have to deal. Were that it were otherwise but this is written.

    Fielding one per cent of the Sunni fighting-age men as active insurgents/freedom fighters with three percent as cadre (40,000) creates a stalemate. They can not dislodge us and our Shia forces nor can we pacify them.

    Personally I would find this leader (or group) now and begin the next phase. Offer them administrative control of electric and water reconstruction projects. They create no-kill, no-maim zones, implement the projects, Halliburton yes, Halliburton no, who cares, and we release the money on a quasi ‘completion’ basis.

    This gambit lacks all pride and ego but we do get to stay a while.

    Sarge might say “Light em if you got em,” for a change.

  • Good call Mr. Wilson! I do single out Sen. Graham simply because he has choosen to spout the talking points of this Adminstration’s failed policy for far too long now. -Kevo

  • ***agree with comment 9*** all the surge really accomplished was segregating the neighborhoods and help with sectarian cleansing. The violence was going down anyway because of Sunni cooperation and leadership. Still there has been no political reconciliation nor is there likely to be. But this is an excellent time for us to get the hell out but now Bush is wanting to make the situation of our involvement permanent.

  • The success we’re seeing in Iraq, after all the struggles and hardships our media has portrayed to us, is certainly welcome.

    What can we attribute this to?

    Hmmm…let’s ask General Petreaus…
    (link is the council on foreign relations Nov 15th interview with the general, COMPLETELY ignored by our media!)

    »www.cfr.org/publication/14805/biddle.html

    CFR) “Well what do you attribute this whole change on the ground to? Is this due to what is called “the surge,” or good diplomacy by the U.S. military, or just luck?”

    Gen P) All of those things have some role but I would put “luck” as probably the biggest.

    The good General is saying we got lucky?

    Sometimes, I’d rather be lucky, than good…

    Farther down:

    Gen P) As a result, Sunnis have come to realize that if this violence goes all out, they lose, they don’t win. A second major factor is the way in which al-Qaeda in Iraq has screwed up—it’s nice to know we’re not the only people who screw things up in Iraq.

    Yes, it is nice to know that there are greater incompetencies than our own in this world. In fact, I’m grateful for it. At the same time that I am grateful for the progress, I am disgusted by the bullshit being fed to us by our leaders and our media.

  • i’m surprised to hear that Lindsey Graham is actually a real, live senator. i was always under the impression that he was some sort of pull string talking points doll, you know, you never know what he’ll say next!

    “five rugs for five bucks!!!”
    “fight em over there!!!”

    my personal favorite was the sunday morning when he shrieked “moral is skyyyyy hiiiiiigh and we’re winning!!!”

    i believe that was several months ago, i’m sure we’ve won by now.

    • Comments are closed.