Lindsey Graham was the Senate's most consistent advocate for American military engagement abroad over a span of more than two decades.
That record is documented, extensive, and — depending on one's politics — either a proud legacy of national security leadership or a troubling pattern of reflexive militarism. This article presents the record without advocating for either interpretation.
For broader context on how these positions shaped his career, see his full biography and major controversies.
Afghanistan (2001–present)
Graham supported the invasion of Afghanistan following the September 11 attacks and remained a supporter of the U.S. military presence there through the Biden administration's 2021 withdrawal.
He was among the most vocal critics of that withdrawal, calling it a catastrophic failure that emboldened adversaries and betrayed Afghan allies.
His position was that the United States should have maintained a residual force in Afghanistan indefinitely to prevent the Taliban from returning to power.
Iraq (2003)
Graham voted for the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq, which authorized the 2003 invasion.
He supported the subsequent troop surge under President Bush and continued to defend the decision to invade, though he acknowledged failures in planning and execution.
Unlike some colleagues who later called the war a mistake, Graham's public statements maintained that removing Saddam Hussein was the right decision in principle, while acknowledging the cost was higher than anticipated.
Libya (2011)
Graham supported the NATO intervention in Libya that led to the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi and pushed for a more robust American military role.
He and Senator John McCain visited Libya during the conflict to show support for the rebel forces. He later expressed frustration that the United States and its allies did not do more to stabilize the country after Gaddafi's fall.
Syria
Graham repeatedly called for U.S. military action in Syria — against both the Assad government's use of chemical weapons and against ISIS.
He supported the Obama administration's strikes in 2014 and pushed for a broader campaign, including the establishment of no-fly zones.
When the Trump administration announced withdrawals from Syria, Graham was one of the most vocal Republican opponents of those decisions.
Ukraine (2022–2026)
Graham was one of Ukraine's most committed American advocates after Russia's 2022 full-scale invasion.
He supported maximum military aid to Ukraine and opposed any agreement that he viewed as rewarding Russian aggression with territorial concessions.
His position on Ukraine and his advocacy during the conflict became defining features of his final years in the Senate, culminating in the Ukraine visit shortly before his death.
He made remarks in 2023 that drew widespread condemnation when he described funding Ukraine as worthwhile partly because it was killing Russians, which earned him a Russian criminal arrest warrant.
Iran Policy
Graham was a consistent advocate for military options against Iran's nuclear program. He opposed the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and supported its abandonment under Trump in 2018.
He has called publicly for military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities at multiple points — a position that put him to the right of most of his Republican colleagues.
His detailed position on Iran covers his full record on that country.
Israel
Graham was one of the Senate's strongest supporters of Israeli military operations, including in Gaza and Lebanon.
He opposed conditions on military aid to Israel and pushed back against efforts in Congress to impose restrictions. His position on Israel aligned closely with the Israeli government's own stated security needs.
What This Record Means
The consistent thread running through all of these positions is a belief that American military power, deployed with allies, is a net positive force in the world and that failure to use it creates larger problems down the line.
That argument has substantial intellectual history behind it — and substantial counterarguments that Graham's critics made forcefully throughout his career.
Whether this record constitutes a legacy of serious statesmanship or a pattern of catastrophic overreach is a debate that was unresolved before he died and will remain unresolved after.
