Keywords or Terms: Mitt Romney; Senator Lindsey Olin Graham, Military
Hawk; Military Industrial Complex; South Carolina; Los Angeles Times; CNN; Senate
Judiciary Committee; Pain-capable Unborn
Child Protection Act; Immigration Reform; Militarization of America’s foreign
policy; Security through Strength;
ISIS, Al Qaida in Arabia and Boko Haram; and, White House’s action
Early spring of 2015 is getting unusually hot among Republican
Presidential hopefuls – not counting the dropping out of Mitt Romney from spade
of candidates gunning for 2016 Party Nomination – the Republican Party is
experiencing some schism due to infighting for campaign strategists, fund
raisers, bundlers and message brokers. Republican aspirants have been jostling to
recruit competent persons into their campaign teams; and the few with prior
experience with the exercise are scarce, pretty scarce. Though unconfirmed,
there was speculation that Romney’s Iowa political strategist for the 2012 exercise
was hired away by Jeb Bush. In a phone conference from Provo, Utah, Mitt Romney
did what was probably expected after interaction with supporters, money bags
and rank and file, and personal reflection or assessment of his chances third
time around, and arrived at the conclusion to give it all up.
So, Romney announced late on Friday as reported by
Los Angeles Times that: ““After putting considerable thought into making
another run for president, I've decided it is best to give other leaders in the
party the opportunity to become our next nominee… I feel
that it is critical that America elect a conservative leader to become our next
president. You know that I have wanted to be that president… But I do not want
to make it more difficult for someone else to emerge who may have a better
chance of becoming that president.” Pundits on twitter lit up with speculations
that the new generation of Republicans Romney was refereeing to, included:
Senator Marco Rubio of Florida; New Jersey Governor Chris Christie; Kentucky
Senator Rand Paul; and, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, among others. Party
insiders claim there are other Republicans as capable, if not even well
grounded in Conservative values, including military hawkishness, especially
Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. Today’s exposé looks at one of such
hawkish and conservative Republicans, Senator Lindsey Graham; a man Senator
McCain calls my personal friend.
Who exactly is Lindsey Olin Graham? What does
America know of this Southern Carolina Senator who is a veteran of Senate among
other accolades? The unique nature of grassroots campaigns is very complex and
sometimes dicey. Mitt Romney who announced his intention to run in 2016 barely
two weeks ago at a gathering of Republican National Committee members in San
Diego has suddenly dropped out. No matter what accolades and praise Republicans
are offering, you sure certain that some Republicans are happy, Mitt is out of
the way! It is now left to other candidates to appeal to the rank and file and
or appease Republican leadership that they are the real deal. Can Lindsey
Graham do this better than Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Rand Paul, Scott Walker or
Bob Carson?
Well, let’s look at him: Mr. Graham is a fifty-nine
year old senior senator from South Carolina who sits on the Senate Judiciary
Committee. Never been married, he’s a lawyer, a former Colonel in the South Carolina
Air National Guard; and currently, US Air Force Reserve. Graham served in Iraq
and Afghanistan as a reservist for short periods in 2007 and 2009. Although
never been in military combat, he carries with him a sympathy for men in uniform
and once said, if found as embellishing his credential as a war hero, he is not
fit to serve in US Congress. He holds a Psychology BA and JD from the
University of Southern Carolina. A right winger, who probably feels welcomed by
the Tea Party group as Texas Senator Ted Cruz; he is married to public service
and once criticized President Obama verminously on Benghazi, going as far as
calling him an Imperial President.
American voters have the burden of proving that one
with such a credential is not fit for office of the presidency; however,
Republicans have a double duty to scan Mr. Graham’s private life for suitability
as their party’s flag bearer. Campaign strategists would do well to analyze the
period before his advent in public service, to figure out if there are some embarrassing
events that may derail a presidential bid. A man who started promoting his own
presidential ambition or candidacy on CNN less than two hours after Mitt Romney
announced that he will not be running in 2016. The senator, who prides himself
as ready to make the Pain-capable Unborn Child Protection Act virtually useless,
recently announced the formation of a presidential exploratory committee, the
Security through Strength Committee, to channel his dream to a reality.
If Senator Lindsey Graham anchors
his presidential campaign on militarization of America’s foreign policy or
immigration reform, he sure has some explaining to do to voters. The foreign war
voyeurism of the last Republican President seems to have traumatized the psyche
of the average American; and, any talk about wars at this time may be nauseating
to many, especially American families who lost loved ones in what many consider
as duped or dubious wars. As a member of the US Senate Judiciary Committee,
Senator Graham hopefully understands how difficult it is for people to believe a
party or government that led the nation to what is considered unnecessary war.
As a lawyer, voters believe he appreciates the difficulty of being lied to and
the burden of proof to show transparency in governance. Whatever his explanation
for justifying returning to hawkishness in foreign policy, hopefully, the
senator is not attempting to revisit policies that brought severe damage to America’s
foreign policy and US presidency?
The last Republican
Administration was filled with many ironies, with Republican leadership being
caught in a web of lies to justify going to war in Iraq, while ignoring common
sense policies and actions that lead directly to the culprits. After the
bombing of September 11, 2001, there was unanimous opinion in Washington that
the Presidency has the obligation to go after the culprits; however, rather
than face this group or master engineers, the Republican Administration headed
to a country that probably contributed through the support of State terrorism; but
was not the actual culprit. One thing that the September 11, 2001 hearing have
demonstrated is that, our leaders may run afoul of the law by being deceptive
of the real reason for their actions in a foreign war. The formidable task of
cleaning up after the last Republican Administration by current Democratic
Administration pronounces ill-will verdict on the seasons of Republicans in the
White House. To anchor your presidential campaign on this dicey and very
troublesome concept at this time may seem unwise.
Despite this apprehension, no
one is advocating passiveness in US foreign policies. With growing terrorism across
the globe and the flexing of muzzles by ISIS and other terrorist groups in the Middle
East, one is not discountenancing the need for strategic policies that halt their
advances. Six plus years of President Obama Administration have shown that success
in foreign policy does not have to be accomplished through go-it-alone foreign
wars; occasionally a systematic maneuvering of the opponents or enemy is all
that is needed.
‘Security through Strength’ slogan
for a presidential campaign seems prudent at a time when voters are not weary
of wars. The strategic superiority of the American military is not in question.
Unnecessary aggressive strategy to counter invisible or suspected risks is
hardly tenable when the nation is still fighting to re-absorb and care for the
veterans of Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Prolonged Kremlin leadership vacuum was
the reason President Reagan was able to curtail Russia in the cold war era; however,
ISIS, Al Qaida in Arabia and Boko Haram in Nigeria and others across the globe
are definably a different animal. We are dealing with group(s) that is chameleonic
in character; our goal is to understudy them and use tactics far different from
what were used in curtailing state sponsored terrorism. It may entail
establishing innovations and initiatives at the intelligent and security agencies
that mirror similar tactics elsewhere used for fighting unconventional terrorism.
We cannot politicize this rather grave new frontier of foreign policy; and, we
are not ready to make concession at any time.
The epigram, nuclear war
cannot be won and must never be fought, hardly applies to fractionalized
terrorism groups across Middle East. Even though the Obama Administration made
some advances through the drone program to curtail terrorists, it is still not
in the nation’s interest to capitalize on some of the failures of the program,
by drawing them into our domestic politics. President Obama has not weakened
the nation by charting a different course in fighting terrorism or addressing
some of the world tough spots. Many political observers have detected and
criticized the failure of one jackets fits all doctrine towards foreign policy.
A more practical rather than nationalistic foreign policy may have greater
influence on the new enemy as we now know.
On the matter of immigration,
it is not enough to criticize President Obama for using executive actions.
There is sufficient blame to torch all parties, US Congress and the White
House. However, there are no reasons to believe that Obama has politicized the process;
it behooves congress to legislate on issue of immigration. If Congress has
failed; the consequential decision for the White House to remain docile on this
rather important issue affecting close to twelve million people living within
American borders, is symptomatic of irresponsibility. Indeed, in some instances,
the pressure groups wanting action on the issue of immigration reform have
weighed heavily on the White House’s action; however, to turn around to blame
the action taken by President Obama as dividing the Republican Party is
untenable. Is the Republican Party the party of self-deportation as you asked? President
Obama deferred to Congress for very long time; and since Congress continued
delaying or reneging on its responsibility, the President acted out of choice
or by succumbing to public opinion. To some advocate of immigration reform,
President Obama’s action seemed to be “damned if you do, damned if you don’t”
It is in this context that the
apprehension of Republicans of the White House’s executive actions on immigration
and other public interest issues must be taken. The tension rising between
Congressional Republicans and the White House demands for political openness, a
very important ingredient of governance that has escaped the two. Both parties
must appreciate the limitations of each other and the place of each other in a
bicameral chamber of congress. Congress must take responsibility for its inaction on very important public issues of legislation. Likewise, the White
House must curry fuller engagement with Congressional lawmakers so that urgent legislation are raised and passed for the President’s signature. For a more
responsive government, everyone has to play its part, US Congress and the White
House.
For now, American voters are
looking forward to meeting the Senior Senator from South Carolina on the
campaign trail. Nowhere in America are voters looking forward to a time of
isolation from the rest of the world; however, no one is expecting a government
which is authorizing or underwriting excessive spending on the military intervention
where the direct interest of America is not at stake. What America wants is for
both Republicans and Democrats to provide solutions to the nation’s pressing
problems, not finger pointing or using epigram to drive presidential campaigns
that they can hardly identify with. The unity sought between lawmakers of both
major political parties is to drive result-oriented governance, where the White
House would not resort to executive actions to better the welfare of Americans.
Good Luck to Senator Lindsey Olin Graham!