Lindsey Graham's suggestion that Putin's assassination, as an inside job, might end Russia's war in Ukraine draws bipartisan heat from sober minds

Lindsey Graham

 

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has drawn fire from both sides of the political aisle for saying out loud what many Westerners probably are thinking: that the best way to end the war in Ukraine would be for someone inside Russia to assassinate President Vladimir Putin.

Graham's remarks probably have drawn thumbs up from bar stools across North America and Europe. But they have met with disapproval from those in higher circles, mostly in the form of "we don't do things like that here, and we certainly don't talk with such crudeness." Those points are well taken, but as someone who is not prone to defend the likes of Lindsey Graham, I will give him credit for this: At least he did not side with Putin and call his invasion of Ukraine an act of "genius" -- like another right-wing political figure with loose lips. And in fairness, we've seen signs that Graham's words have been misinterpreted in some quarters.

Many of Graham's critics have reacted with no sign of uncertainty. Politico, for example, called his statements an act of "stupidity." From opinion writer Jack Shafer:

Sen. Lindsey Graham’s call for a Russian citizen to perform a hit job on Vladimir Putin is such a self-evidently terrible idea that even Ted Cruz, himself a bottomless lode of 24-carat wretched thinking, dunked on its stupidity.

Graham proposed Putin’s assassination on both a Thursday broadcast of “Hannity” and on his Twitter feed. “Is there a Brutus in Russia?” Graham asked on Twitter. “The only way this ends is for somebody in Russia to take this guy out. You would be doing your country — and the world — a great service.”

As if addressing a five-year-old, Cruz used his brief tweet to explain to his fellow Republican senator that the assassination of a foreign head of state was not something that belonged in the American playbook. Sanction Russia, Cruz argued, provide military aid to the Ukrainians, boycott Russian gas and oil, but don’t encourage someone to whack him.

It probably is quite a feat to make Ted Cruz sound like the adult in the room. But Graham pulled it off,  and he caused NPR to provide background on his comments:

Sen. Lindsey Graham's suggestion that Russians should assassinate President Vladimir Putin has drawn the ire of Republicans and Democrats concerned over the war in Ukraine.

"Is there a Brutus in Russia? Is there a more successful Colonel Stauffenberg in the Russian military?" the South Carolina Republican asked in a tweet.

Roman Emperor Julius Caesar was assassinated by Brutus and others in the Rome Senate on the Ides of March. Graham was also referring to German Lt. Col. Claus von Stauffenberg, who tried to kill Adolf Hitler in the summer of 1944.

"The only way this ends is for somebody in Russia to take this guy out. You would be doing your country - and the world - a great service," Graham said.

Asked about the remarks during the White House news briefing on Friday afternoon, press secretary Jen Psaki said, "That is not the position of the United States government and certainly not a statement you'd hear come from the mouth of anybody working in this administration."

Why does Politico consider Graham's remarks stupid. Shafer seems to acknowledge that such statements have a certain low-level appeal. But he also suggests there are better ways to achieve peace -- and along the way -- he provides some fascinating history on the subject of political hit jobs; even the American government, it turns out, has not always been on the side of restraint in such matters:

The pitch to terminate Putin, Julius Caesar-style, may sound appealing. Who among us has never wished a maximally violent end on an evil dictator who is committing monstrous acts? But that’s not the way our government works anymore. Assigning Putin’s death might be plausible if we were already at war with Russia, but we’re not — yet! And the unintended consequences of murdering Putin need our consideration before we think of locking and loading.

Since President Gerald R. Ford prohibited the assassination of foreign leaders with an executive order in 1976, political assassination has been off the United States’ books (at least formally). But it wasn’t always that way. In the early 1960s, the U.S. government formulated several attempts and plans to kill Cuban leader Fidel Castro using exploding cigars, a pair of murderous mobsters, a femme fatale, an exploding seashell and a poison pen. One reason the U.S. backed away from assassinations was the loss of its own chief executive, John F. Kennedy, to a sniper’s rifle. As long as the U.S. maintained anything like an assassination bureau, it tacitly endorsed the legality of foreign nations setting up their own killing squads to take out our president. Graham may think he insulated President Joe Biden from Russian retaliation by assigning the death of Putin to a Russian, but think how well that argument would hold up if Putin ordered today that some American play Brutus in the coming days by ridding the world of Biden.

Yes, two can play the political-assassination game, and that might be the single strongest argument against Graham's line of thinking. Shafer goes a few steps further:

Granted, killing Putin would eliminate the architect of the criminal invasion of Ukraine. But we have no assurance that his replacement would reverse his military actions. We don’t even have a sound idea of who stands to inherit control of Russia or even an inkling of whether or not Putin’s absolute power would be handed down to just one new strongman. It’s conceivable that a Putin assassination would initiate a deadly, chaotic power struggle among top Kremlin and military leaders, whose outcome cannot be accurately predicted. For instance, who wants to see three or four Russian factions, each with nuclear capability, battling one another? Will one of them be authorized to make peace with the West or will we end up with several new nuclear adversaries instead of one? Never forget what followed the hanging of Saddam Hussein and the murder of Muammar Gaddafi. The death of a strongman almost never serves the remedy we seek.

It might be a different matter had Graham called for the assassination of Putin after the United States declared war on Russia. In times of absolute war, heads of state are legitimate targets. But no such state of war currently exists between our two countries. Did anybody in the U.S. Senate recommend the assassination of Nikita Khrushchev when he invaded Hungary or place an order for Leonid Brezhnev’s hide after he sent tanks into Czechoslovakia?

U.S. sponsorship of Putin’s assassination also could easily backfire if Russians interpreted his killing as an act of American escalation that would unite them in favor of new acts of counter-escalation. Russian citizens who share little affinity with Putin or his war today could become patriotic Putinites overnight.

 NPR provides more detail on the law that governs potential attacks on heads of state:

    Assassination during military conflict is specifically forbidden by the Lieber Code, which     President        Abraham Lincoln issued as a general order for U.S. forces in 1863.

   Section IX of the code states that the laws of war forbid declaring a member of a hostile force or a        citizen or subject of a hostile government to be an outlaw "who may be        slain without trial."

"Civilized nations look with horror upon offers of rewards for the assassination of               enemies  relapses into barbarism," according to the Lieber Code, which underpins international conventions on  warfare.

    Graham's remarks drew wide attention and criticism. In response, U.K. Prime Minister Boris                  Johnson's office said he believes Putin should be held responsible for any war crimes committee         citing an investigation by the International Criminal Court.

    The senator's communications director, Kevin Bishop, sought to clarify his comments.   

Graham "also expressed he was okay with a coup to remove Putin as well," Bishop said.   "Basic            point, Putin has to go," he said, adding that the Russian people should find the "off ramp" to the            international crisis.

As for misinterpretation of Graham's remarks, some have suggested he called for Putin's assassination. But that's not quite what he said; he suggested that Putin's demise would be the best way to end war in Ukraine. Even Politico used the phrase "U.S. sponsorship of Putin’s assassination," but I'm not aware that Graham made any hint of U.S. involvement; in fact, he seems to clearly suggest that any such action must come from inside Russia.  

Bottom line: Lindsey Graham is a U.S. senator, and he should realize he was raising a sensitive subject in a time of war. He should give his remarks more thought before he makes them, they should rise above the level of bar-stool chatter, and they probably should come behind closed doors.

To the extent that Graham's main idea was that Putin has to go, he has a point. But he needs to be more careful about how he makes that point.

Perhaps U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) put it best, in a tweet:

    "I really wish our members of Congress would cool it and regulate their remarks as the                             administration works to avoid WWlll. As the world pays attention to how the US and its leaders are      responding, Lindsey's remarks, and remarks made by some House members aren't helpful."