What is the senator inferring by raising the Hiroshima and Nagasaki examples?
I admired Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) when Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was alive. Graham was his protege and a potential McCain replacement in the hallowed Senate Armed Services Committee.
Then tragedy struck.
McCain succumbed to brain cancer. And Donald Trump, who disrespected McCain’s heroic service as a Vietnam War prisoner of war, became president.
Where did the old Lindsey go? Who knows?
Under McCain’s tutelage, Graham was a shrewd critic of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. As an Air Force Judge Advocate reserve officer, he embarked upon short-term missions during both of those wars. He saw and understood how bloody urban warfare could be in Fallujah and Mosul. But where did that understanding go?
On the Sunday talk shows, Graham railed against the Biden administration’s decision to withhold certain weapons from Israel, principally Mark-84 (MK-84) 2,000-pound bombs.
First, these are not precision weapons even though they can land within feet of any target. The damage radius from blast and shrapnel is measured in hundreds of feet. How many MK-84s did the U.S. use in urban warfare in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan? Virtually none.
Second, Graham noted that the U.S. used two nuclear weapons against Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end World War II. Pursuing that reference is important.
The U.S. feared that an invasion of Japan could produce millions of Western and Japanese casualties. Firebombing of Japanese cities killed more civilians than did both bombs. The conclusion was that the power of a single bomb would shock and awe the Japanese into surrender. That worked.
So, what is the senator inferring by raising the Hiroshima and Nagasaki examples? Is he saying that like Japan, Hamas must be shocked and awed into submission? How would that be accomplished? Nuclear weapons?
Or is the destruction of Gaza and the deaths of tens or hundreds of thousands of Palestinians acceptable? If that is the case, say so. And if it is not, that is important to note.
Graham does raise an interesting constitutional issue. Congress has passed and the president has signed legislation that authorized and approved the transfer of military equipment. Does the president as commander in chief have the authority to regulate those transfers? This underscores one of the contradictions between Article I and II powers outlined in the Constitution.
In a less politically charged environment, this would be a non-issue. Can you imagine if Graham were in the Senate in World War II and criticizing President Franklin Roosevelt or Harry Truman for altering priorities between the Atlantic and Pacific theaters? Of course not.
One very serious problem is the Biden administration’s failure to articulate its strategy towards Israel. If the administration is to withhold aid to Israel, the public and Congress need to know why. The most likely argument is that under its current plan, Israel risks destroying Gaza in its effort to destroy Hamas.
That may be the price that has to be paid. If it is, then the consequences must be understood. The irony is that Hamas, a despicable terrorist organization, has been made the victim despite the horrors it commits and its dedication to eliminating Israel. This is more than a public relations campaign.
Palestinians in Gaza are in extremis. That Israel could be expected to reverse that condition through the flow of humanitarian goods and services is naive. How a nation of nearly 10 million can support a quarter of that, even with outside aid, is naive and unrealistic.
So what needs to be done?
First, the Biden team must lay out a more understandable argument for its Gaza and Israeli strategy.
Second, the Department of Defense needs to hold public tutorials on traditional and social media explaining the extraordinary challenges and dangers of urban warfare. In particular, what damage can a Mk-84 2,000-pound bomb impose?
Third, Sen. Graham, please recall your time with Sen. McCain and compare his wisdom and advice with your current mentor. And please, please do not use the Hiroshima and Nagasaki metaphor, as some will conclude that Israel should repeat that experience in Gaza.
Hamas must lose. But destroying Gaza to save it is not a rational course of action.
Harlan Ullman, Ph.D. is a senior advisor at the Atlantic Council and the prime author of the “shock and awe” military doctrine. His 12th book, “The Fifth Horseman and the New MAD: How Massive Attacks of Disruption Became the Looming Existential Danger to a Divided Nation and the World at Large,” is available on Amazon. He can be reached on X @harlankullman.
