"Running Scared" is a friendly but very absorbing article on Democratic Presidential Candidate Bob Graham.
My favourite part of the whole piece is Graham's political innovation of full-day "workdays," where he goes around Florida working jobs from chicken-plucker to emptying bedpans. It's not just a gimmick, and in my opinion it ought to be enshrined in law. Still, that isn't what I'm going to focus on. Instead, I'll highlight the question at the center of this article:
How did someone with a reputation as one of the most stable, unexcited, boring men in the Senate suddenly become a "freakout guy," sounding the alarm on Hezbollah and warning the Senate that it would have "blood on its hands" unless it acted, all the while voting against the 2002 Iraq resolution?
His colleagues don't think it's political posturing, and neither do I. It's driven by a coherent viewpoint, and that viewpoint makes strong sense on its own terms. Some key excerpts:
"...But if Graham is a dove, he's an extremely rare bird. He supported the first Gulf War, and only opposed the second one because he had a long list of countries he believed were more dangerous than Iraq, and didn't want to jack up the risk of terrorism for a low-priority target. He hints that he could support military action against known terrorists -- al Qaeda in Yemen, Hezbollah in Syria, Lebanon and Iran, and even Hamas in the West Bank and Gaza. His message is simple: There are many people with the ability and desire to kill Americans, so we'd better kill them first. "We've taken the pressure off al Qaeda," he complains. "We haven't done anything about Hezbollah. We need to take the fight to the terrorists."Graham is also focused on Homeland Security. To him, that doesn't mean government busybodies turning your life upside down - it means securing key infrastructure like port facilitiers against terrorist attack, and he made real strides in that area...."Even before September 11, it was no secret that terrorists posed a serious risk to Americans. They had already tried to blow up the World Trade Center and had successfully destroyed two U.S. embassies in Africa. Authorities had even foiled an al Qaeda plot to fly planes into buildings. But bureaucratic reports full of ghastly premonitions gathered dust, and the attacks ultimately came as a gruesome shock. After September 11, of course, commentators promptly declared that the age of denial was over, but everyone knows that simply wasn't true. Denial is still a powerful force on a planet where everyone eventually dies. Americans are obviously more conscious of their vulnerabilities now, and the concept of deterrence that kept the Cold War from going hot is clearly less relevant to conflicts with zealots who welcome their own demise. But most Americans prefer not to spend their days thinking about apocalyptic attacks. It's no fun. So after September 11, that job fell to people like Bob Graham."
..."Bob is a responsible guy; if he says something, it's true," says Buddy Shorstein, his former chief of staff and one of his best friends. "I'll tell you, that's what scares the hell out of me."
..."Graham argues that the Bush administration has shifted resources from al Qaeda and Afghanistan to Hussein and Iraq, downgrading the war on terrorism abroad to a scattershot manhunt while increasing the risk of terrorism at home. Graham also believes that Bush has ignored the threat of Hezbollah, which runs terrorist training camps in Syria and Syrian-controlled areas of southern Lebanon. Graham charges that Bush eased the pressure on Syria, a member of the United Nations Security Council, in order to mute its opposition to war in Iraq, and he was not appeased when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld publicly accused Syria of smuggling night-vision goggles to Iraqi forces.
"I've never heard him talk about Syria supporting the training camps that will graduate the next generation of terrorists," Graham says. "I think that's a much greater threat than goggles." Graham also accuses the administration of going soft on Saudi Arabia, an ally that Graham hints may have had financial links to the September 11 hijackers."
This is what a serious Democratic Party position on U.S. national security looks like. Bill Clinton thinks more people should be listening to Senator Graham. I'm with Bill on this one... and that alone should get you reading this article.
The problem with Graham's comments is that while they are well-informed by the physical reality of the terrorist situation, they ignore entirely the political reality of the United States. The fact of the matter is that there is literally no way that President Bush could have taken effective action against Hezbollah in Syria. Iraq was next for the simple reason that it was the next highest target we could take on after Afghanistan. Not because Syria is tougher than Iraq but because Bush could gather enough support to actually legally take action in Iraq and could not have against Hezbollah in Syria. Imagine if he had tried. Graham is essentially saying that Bush should have abandoned a policy that has proven wildly successful for one clearly Quixotic.
In addition, Graham's arguments have proven empty with regards to diverting resources away from al Qaeda and Afghanistan. Afghanistan is in a maintenance phase and doesn't need the forces that had been there initially and has not suffered because our troops are also in Iraq. And al Qaeda is a different fight entirely and uses different resources and infrastructure as a result of our action in Afghanistan.
Which isn't to say that Graham doesn't represent the best unified theory for Democratic Opposition to Bush. I'm just pointing out that his arguments are vulnerable in the one sphere where they will be taken seriously--in analytical and critical circles.
Jacob Proffitt
Geez, Joe, it looks like you just don't want serious and thoughtful analysis to problems. Need that "shock and awe" don't you? How old are you? Seriously! Yes, as a Floridian I am somewhat proud of his achievements, which could have been better if Republicans like yourself weren't throwin up road block after road block to every single solid progressive reform! Notice how you have a link (pretty much copy and paste here--but I just chalk this up to your poor schooling) to the Washington Post. A Moonie pubication!!! Are you a moonie Joe? Why do you keep on citing Moonie literature, and treating it like gospel material. Get a brain, Joe, please. Sift things out, and think! It's hard, I know, with the American education system as it is--one reason that I now teach university students here in Japan. But, to deride a candidate because he is mild-manner just goes to how you that people don't want that: they want violence, they want "shock and awe" and they want their goddman 'Presidents" landing on battle ships. Soooooo cool!
America is doomed with people like you!
...Ad so, Robert goes way off the deep end. I think the publication he means is the Washington TIMES. Thanks for playing, Robert.
The history of the Washington Post is interesting as it relates to Bob Graham in particular, but it covers that in the article.
Good post Joe, and there is no question that people should be paying attention to Graham, especially on homeland security. However, there is a glaring error in his thought process that needs to be addressed. According to Graham:
There are many people with the ability and desire to kill Americans, so we'd better kill them first. "We've taken the pressure off al Qaeda," he complains. "We haven't done anything about Hezbollah. We need to take the fight to the terrorists."
When he says we haven’t done anything about Hezbollah he is simply dead wrong. In fact, we may have struck a more effective blow against Hezbollah than we could have via a direct conflict with them.
It is a theme you have heard before. I know because you posted my thoughts on it. Our foreign policy does not take place in a vacuum. Our actions have far reaching consequences. Because of our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq the game has changed dramatically in the Middle East.
Bashir Assad now knows one thing crystal clear. If the next 9/11 is engineered by Hezbollah he has a life expectancy of around three months. Dictators really like staying in power and they like staying alive even better. We need to use this fact to our advantage.
There has been a paradigm shift in the Middle East, but like all such shifts they meet resistance and take a little time to fully take hold. When Ossama bin Laden told the Taliban leaders the U.S. was a paper tiger, and wouldn’t fight on the ground and take casualties, they wanted to believe him and they did.
When Saddam’s yes-men told him the U.S. would never launch a pre-emptive attack and that he could drag out the inspections/diplomacy/UN game indefinitely he wanted to believe them and he did.
The Taliban and the Iraqi army fell quickly and best of all the U.S. made it look easy. As that reality sinks in, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and the rest of the bastards are diminished. Why? Because they exist largely at the mercy of the dictators in whose countries they hide.
The U.S. can’t be in all places at once so we must create a world in which the dictators of the Middle East have a real interest in controlling their own radical elements. Three years ago they had virtually no incentive to do so – now they do. When we target the states that support terrorism (and Iraq did) we ARE “taking the fight to the terrorists.”
I could go on and on about this but I have already taken up enough of your comments section.
Graham may well be providing a useful service by reminding people of the threat. It is human nature to become complacent and the cost of complacency has never been higher.
However, in performing this useful service he demonstrates why he should never be elected to national office. The tortured logic of his position on Iraq (basically, opposed military action against a low priority target compared to Hezbollah or Iran as it would provoke retaliation) demonstrates he is not capable of thinking strategically, only tactically.
For example, Iraq happens to border three countries he names as greater threats: Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Conquering it dramatically increases our strategic options with respect to these countries even if it is not the #1 threat (that itself is debatable). Graham never acknowledges this geostrategic argument. He understands tactical issues, like port security, better than anyone in the Senate. Maybe he should be director of Homeland Security someday but a President must think strategically as well as tactically.
I see the Graham position as kind of nutty. There are also very dangerous Naxalite terrorists in Bihar, and Maoists in Nepal, but it's hardly the US's job to fight them. Same goes for HAMAS, who attacks Israel and causes trouble for Arafat.
As you know, Joe, it's never been a war against terrorism. It's a war against terrorists with global reach. Which I take to mean terrorist that can hurt the USA.
For political reasons, this includes HAMAS and the East Turkestan Islamic Movement. And to the extent those groups aid ALQ, or other enemies of the USA, they shoudl be targetted and pressured. But it would be easier (less blood and treasure spent) to use pressure and threats (and targetted violence) to prevent those groups from helping ALQ.
(In fact, making war on HAMAS might hurt the USA, to the extent that HAMAS and ALQ begin co-operating. Right now, HAMAS is not a US problem. Wouldn't it be better to keep it that way?)
But, of course, the US is free to choose its own position. Neither you nor I have any sway in what they do. Here in Canada, we ought to defend ourselves against the enemies of Canada, which include ALQ, but do not include Naxalites, ETIM, or for that matter, HAMAS.