Judging Freedom - Col. Douglas Macgregor: Suppose Netanyahu asks for American Ground Troops...?

Episode Date: December 14, 2023

In the intricate landscape of international relations, hypothetical scenarios often present themselves as crucial points of analysis, prompting reflection on potential geopolitical challenges and strategic decisions. Today, we are honored to be joined by Col. Douglas Macgregor, a distinguished military expert and seasoned commentator, as we delve into a hypothetical yet pivotal question: What if Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu were to request American ground troops?This thought-provoking scenario calls for a nuanced examination of the delicate balance between alliance dynamics, geopolitical interests, and the potential consequences of such a request. Col. Macgregor, with his extensive military experience and strategic insights, provides a unique perspective on the complexities surrounding military interventions and the implications of direct involvement in foreign conflicts.#russia #ukraine #USMilitaryHistory #Israel #Gaza #ceasefire #hostages #Ukraine #zelenskyy #Biden #china #IsraelPalestine #MiddleEastConflict #PeaceInTheMiddleEast #GazaUnderAttack #Ceasefire #Jerusalem #prayforpeace #hostages #Israel #Gaza #ceasefire #hostages #Ukraine #zelenskyy #Biden #china #IsraelPalestine #MiddleEastConflict #PeaceInTheMiddleEast #GazaUnderAttack #Ceasefire #Jerusalem #prayforpeace #hostagesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Thank you. Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Thursday, December 14th, 2023. Colonel Douglas McGregor joins us now. Colonel, yesterday the show reached a threshold of 250,000 subscribers. I sent you a note and your response was very gracious. But it is true when I say that you are very, very much responsible for the size of our audience and the success of our show. And I and the people watching and listening to us now are deeply grateful for the time that you give us. This is your second segment this week. Thank you very much, Colonel. Oh, thank you for inviting me, George. How dangerous is it for the U.S. to be spending $886 billion on defense, a number just reached this morning in the House of Representatives,

a number that is more than the next 12 countries combined, including Russia, China, and Great Britain, a number that includes financing and maintaining more than 900 foreign military installations is it just more of the same no matter who's in the White House oh absolutely it's a runaway train because it enriches too many people on the hill and inside the Beltway and as I think President Biden pointed out and others have, it also keeps various assembly lines operating, building things, some which are useful and some which we don't need. But the point is that it is deeply embedded in the Washington community. And so there's not going to be any change until we are broke. I don't think that's that far off. I think Nassim Taleb and others have pointed that

out. It's only a matter of time, but no one knows when the financial crisis will finally strike and put an end to it. But until the crisis comes, what would you have advised President Biden? Well, it's a weird juxtaposition. Let's say Donald Trump is elected president in 2024, and let's say you are the Secretary of Defense, and let's say he leans on you for the most serious advice about how to spend dollars on the military. Can you give us a thumbnail version of what you would tell them? Well, a new national military strategy, something like NS-68, only updated, is badly needed. NS-68 was the document that militarized containment strategy and ultimately has brought us to where we are today. So we need a new national security strategy embodied in such a document and then ultimately ratified

through legislation. But the number one consideration must be that the United States will not employ the use of military power against anyone beyond the borders of the United States unless it itself is attacked. That's number one. Number two, we are going to focus principally and primarily on Western hemispheric defense. That includes security of our borders and security of our country in a general sense, our literal waters. And then finally, re-examine all the the alliance commitments we we cannot afford all of the commitments we don't need them the world has changed radically since most of these agreements were reached that's the start point and then when you move into the military itself you've got to dramatically downsize all these regional unified commands, reducing their numbers. You've got to

reduce and consolidate the so-called functional commands into a larger but smaller, in the sense of command and control setting. All of these things need to be done. You would go from 44 four-star generals down to roughly 10 or 9. In other words, you have to size the national defense establishment in a way that is both consistent with our fiscal needs and re-examine what we call national security. Right now, national security means global military dominance by the United States and its armed forces. We really need to get out of that business. It's not necessary. In fact, it creates more trouble than it's worth. Colonel, should we be fighting as we are in Africa and in Syria? No. I mean, first of all, Africa, for anybody who's been there, I have the last thing Africans

need are more people with guns walking through the neighborhood. There are a lot of problems in Africa. We cannot solve them. When we intervene there to try and do so in any way, we end up looking like the French, the British, the Portuguese, the Spaniards, the Belgians, and the rest. We don't want to do that. We want to do business with everyone. We believe in a free market, but we're going to protect our markets.

We're also going to protect our citizens. But we're not interested in regime change. We're not interested in imposing societal norms on people that don't want them and don't need them. We've got, all of this has to change. And so the answer to Africa is absurd. No, let's stay out of Africa as much as possible. And then Syria, no one could tell me when I was in the building what we were doing there. Sitting on a very small area with a few drilling rigs and oil wells on the assumption that this was hurting Assad, that's nonsense. It's not our territory. And we're caught right now between the Turks, the Kurds, the Iranians, all of whom are at each other's throats over territory and dominion. Why? Why should we be there doing that?

In fact, the Kurds that are interested in fighting with the Turks are actually a small group. We just need to get out. We need to get out of Iraq. We still have 5,000-plus troops on the ground and 12 or 13 bases. They're all sitting targets. What are they there for? To conceal the fact that we failed in Iraq, that we were an immense strategic disaster.

We created chaos. It all needs to go away, Judge. We're not needed. We're needed at home and the troops are needed at home on our borders. Last question in this area. Should we stay in NATO? I think what we should tell the Europeans is something that I actually discussed previously, and I think the President, if he ends up returning to the White House, will consider this very carefully and simply tell the Europeans, ultimately, we don't live in Europe. You do. We're happy to support you where it makes

sense to do so. But ultimately, you must defend yourselves. You must be your own first responders. That's number one. Number two, a European now needs to become the supreme commander of Allied Powers Europe. In other words, we've run the show in Europe literally since 1945. Militarily, this should be done by the Europeans. How they choose to do that is their affair. And simply go back to the original underlying tenets of the NATO alliance, which was not to attack people, not to project power outside of Europe, not to start wars, but to be purely defensive. But we've got to tell the Europeans, we're getting out. We're not going to be your first responder. It doesn't make sense. And we can't rapidly

reinforce the way we did in the past. We can do so with some air and naval power, but not with ground forces. Colonel, the president has stated publicly that he wants $68 billion appropriated for Ukraine before the Congress goes home for Christmas. It does not appear as though that's going to happen, notwithstanding the full court press that the president and his people and President Zelensky waged earlier in the week. How much longer can Ukraine survive as a military entity attempting to resist the Russians as a government without United States aid? 30 days. And that's probably optimistic. becomes clear that we're not staying, you'll see the same kind of situation unfold in Ukraine

that you witnessed in Afghanistan, with all of the brave and courageous governmental leaders stashing as much cash as they can in their automobiles, in suitcases and bags and either driving or flying out of the country. In the case of Ukraine, I'm sure you'll see the same thing. As soon as it becomes clear we're not going to supply any more cash for redistribution to the various cartel and criminal elements in ukraine not just the government and the army the game's up everybody gets out it's over um i want to play a clip for you president zielinski with president biden yesterday in my opinion what he said was shameful but, but I'm anxious to hear your thoughts. Number 15, Chris.

Defending freedom. For nearly two years, we have been in a full-scale war. The biggest since World War II. Fighting for freedom. We stand firm. No matter what Putin tries, he hasn't won any victories.

Thanks to Ukraine's success, success in defense, other European nations are safe from the Russian aggression, unlike in the past. Isn't there a lot of hogwash in there? Well, of course. Think of Eastern Europe and Ukraine in particular,

the way the Romans used to think about the Eastern Mediterranean. If you look at the maps of the Roman Empire of North Africa and the Middle East, the Romans tended to restrict their interests and their interventions to the coastlines. They did not penetrate very deeply into the interior. They didn't do it because there was no benefit to doing so. There's no strategic benefit to the Russians to penetrate deeply into Ukraine or, for that matter, to threaten Eastern Europe. It's absurd. There was never any such intent. We goaded the Russians into intervening. They did. They went in with the assumption, which turned out to be false,

that they could reach an agreement with the Ukrainians. Now, in defense of the position Moscow took, as you know, Judge, we did reach, when I say we, I'm talking about the Ukrainians and the Russians, did reach an agreement. We intervened to stop and sabotage. Then we told Zelensky, you will have the total scientific, industrial and military power of the United States and the NATO alliance. You are sure to win. And Zelensky believed him. And Zelensky was only too happy to take the billions and billions of hard cash that came flowing his way, along with all the equipment. And we know that the Ukrainians have lost roughly 500,000 dead,

maybe more. And there's no bringing them back. You're talking about a generation of young men. And if you stop and think about it, this is in the space of 22 months. And in the space of 110 days during World War I, which is all that we fought for in 1918, we lost 110,000 dead. So you've got a tally of dead roughly five times what we lost in 110 days over a period of 22 months. That's enough to destroy any country, especially a country the size of Ukraine, which was never the 40 million that it was supposed to be at the outset.

And now it's down to what, 20 million, 19 million? Who knows? It's impossible to know. But millions have left. I mean, Patrick Lancaster, the courageous independent journalist who lives among the ethnic Russians in the Donbass region reported to us this morning that the Russians control about 90% of the eastern provinces, which under Russian law are part of Russia, which are clearly cultural Russians. I want to play a clip from President Putin on all this, but before I do, isn't the war effectively over, Colonel? Well, from the standpoint of anyone who looks at this strategically,

the answer is unambiguously yes. Only a fool on the Ukrainian side would try to keep it going because it's not going to get any better. The only thing that can happen from now on is that the Russians can continue to advance and ultimately seize more and more territory. And the more territory they seize, the less likely they are to give anything up.

So the best shot at this point is to stop and negotiate. So the war, yeah, from a military standpoint, there's no chance of this turning around and improving under any circumstances for Ukraine. Let's watch Cut20. Chris? There will be peace when we achieve our goals. Now, let's get back to these goals.

They don't change. Let me remind you of what we talked about, about the denazification of Ukraine, about demilitarization, about its neutral status. We will agree on demilitarization and agree on certain parameters. During the negotiations in Istanbul, we agreed on them, but then they simply threw these agreements into the oven. There are other possibilities, either to reach an agreement or to resolve it by force. This is what we will strive for.

President Putin earlier today, and he does this every year right before Christmas, that's two or three hours. Can you imagine Joe Biden doing this without written answers for him to read? He does this for two or three hours every Christmas time. But he's remarkably consistent, is he not? Oh, absolutely. I would go one step further and ask you whether or not there is any leader in the Western world who, after delivering some prepared remarks for 20, 30 minutes, could then sit for almost four hours, answer questions, and demonstrate his command of all of the issues and the details, economic, military, political, without notes,

without pausing for a second to look at anything, without turning and saying, you know, by the way, come over here, tell me something. Impossible. The man is exceptionally intelligent, very competent, and I think from the very beginning has been straightforward and truthful. But of course, that's not what people want to say. No, no, no, no. It's not what the American government wants to hear. President Zelensky still has the pipe dream of NATO membership, and he articulated that as recently as this morning. Now, Chris, I don't know which number this is, but it's President Orban of Hungary. I want you to listen.

There's another solid, intelligent, rational Western leader on what they're doing in Brussels. And is it realistic that they would consider NATO membership for Ukraine? Why we are here is not to make business. It's not about bargain. It's not about deal. We represent approaches and principles. So to give money to Ukraine is easy to do because in short term, the money for Ukraine is already in the budget. So there is no any extra decision to give it in short term. In long term and the bigger sum of money, my position is that we should give it outside. But we are not under the pressure of the time because the bridging solution is already in the budget.

Enlargement is not a theoretical issue. Enlargement is a merit-based, legally detailed process, which has preconditions. We have set up seven preconditions. And even by the evaluation of the commission, three out of the seven is not fulfilled. So there is no reason to negotiate membership of Ukraine now. That's about as clear and crisp and rationally based as it could be. I'm sure President Zelensky has a different view. I don't know what the rest of NATO thinks. What do you think?

President Orban knows the russians he experienced all of the various crises that occurred in the 1950s 60s 70s he understands the mentality he obviously understood what garbachev stood for what he was interested in he's visited there many times when he speaks he speaks with this kind of understanding and he knows that ukraine as an entity could never be allowed to be transformed into a threat to russia and that is ultimately what ukraine is all about there is no requirement for ukraine to join the north atlantic treaty organization there never was i mean frankly speaking there was no requirement for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to advance into Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania. Finland. Now Finland, which is just stupid, stupidity on stilts, especially the Finns.

But, you know, the bottom line is that he's simply telling you the truth. Everything he said is accurate. But I like the term principles and approaches. What are our principles that justify regime change, that justify war? It doesn't make any sense. There are no such principles in the West. This is about an elite class that revolves around Washington and is connected across Washington and London and New York City. And this elite class has decided to wage war to destroy Russia for its own reasons that have nothing to do with the interests of Europeans and the people of the Western world. There's no requirement for it. There were no armies massing to attack anyone.

But remember what President Putin said. He said, we will have our requirements met. In other words, we will attain our objectives. But if for some reason we cannot, we will settle them militarily. And what I've tried to tell people from the very beginning is, Ukraine is as vital and essential strategically to Russia as southern Texas, Mexico, southern Arizona, southern New Mexico, southern California would be to us. In other words, he's not going to budge on this. And if he has to move forces all the way to the West, he's got the time.

He has the forces. NATO is not growing stronger. It's dead man walking. It too is on life support. Behind the scenes, everybody's saying, now what? Now what? Now what? And if you ask them, well, you know, it's time for you to mobilize your armed forces and march east. They all look at you as though you've lost your mind. And they're right to do so. They're not going anywhere to fight. Neither are we. Switching gears before we close, do you sense a gap between President Biden and Prime Minister Netanyahu over the president's ability either

to justify or be indifferent about the slaughter, the absolute slaughter going on in Gaza at the hands of the Israeli Defense Forces? I think Europeans look at President Biden and they see a living metaphor for what has happened to us as a nation. They see us as on a very steep decline. We no longer control our borders. We don't control immigration. we don't suppress criminality uh it is be the United States has become a free society and free fall we don't even know who we are we don't have an identity we stand by and watch as the federal government and its armed supporters and the civil populace deface monuments and tear down monuments, destroy our heritage, our culture, our history. Europeans watch this and they say, well, it looks like the Americans are finished.

And at the same time, if you look at someone like Olaf, not Olaf, but Olaf Scholz, who is now wants to declare emergency conditions in Germany on the grounds that Germany has to be ready to fight Russia, which is, of course, laughable. In reality, he's trying to prepare his regime to suppress opposition to it inside Germany. That is appalling, but that's where he's headed. I wouldn't be surprised if Mr. Macron doesn't end up in the same position. All of these governments in the West are going to be swept away. They're finished. They're done. Their populations have had it with them. They are going to be replaced, but they're not going to be replaced by the people or people like the individuals that are currently governing Western Europe or this country. All right. Before Joe

Biden is replaced, what do you think will happen if Netanyahu asks him for American ground troops in Gaza? Or in the West Bank, which I think would be more likely the request. I don't know about that. I think the Israelis can cope with the West Bank as well as Gaza. The area where they're going to have more difficulty is the northern front facing Hizballah. I mean, if you look at Hizballah's capabilities, the forces it can field, it makes Hamas look like a volunteer fire department.

But it is not an American national security interest. It may be an American domestic political interest, but not national security interest to put troops there, American troops. No, but bear in mind that if this if this widens if this escalates and you know I've expressed my view in the past that I fear escalation I I don't see how we avoid it I don't see how this does not eventually engulf the entire region the request for U.S troops will come at a point in time where the purpose is to rescue Israel and I'm not sure that when that comes we'll be able to do it because again we're not the great military power of 1990 and 91. we're a shadow of our former selves and

more important the American electorate has changed our population demographically has changed you can't rely on it to come to Israel's aid under those circumstances. That's why I think privately, Biden, Sullivan, Blinken, all of whom have been told to shut up and go home, have tried to say, look, this can't go on. But from Mr. Netanyahu's standpoint, he's in control of Congress. And he has the upper hand inside the White House itself, I suspect. And I would not be at all surprised if this does not go on all the way into the next year in Gaza. The question is, as this begins to wind down in Gaza, and there's nothing left and almost nobody left to live there, what happens

in the rest of the region? And that's something that I think is going to surprise everyone, just as much as the Israelis were surprised by what happened on 7 October. And that, you know, notwithstanding the questions about how that happened to begin with, and I myself continue to wonder about that. But nevertheless, that notwithstanding, what happens then? Because we've talked about it before, the situation in Turkey, the situation in iran the situation everywhere is bad and then you have this very dangerous element in washington that's decided that the solution to all of our troubles is to strike iran that going to war with iran will solve the problems in the middle east and and help us well they must be responding to donors because I see no evidence for that argument whatsoever.

That would be catastrophic for us. And remember, the Chinese have very serious interests in the Persian Gulf, the Arabian Peninsula, access to the Red Sea, access to the Persian Gulf, the Indian Ocean, not for the purpose of attacking us or challenging us. That's all nonsense. They are desperately dependent upon food, oil, and gas that come from those regions, especially from Africa when it comes to food. Are they going to sit by and watch Iran destroyed

when they depend so heavily on it? And what does Russia do? Russia now has probably the most experienced and capable military force in the world. What are they going to do? Are they going to stand by and watch us pulverize Iran into rubble? I don't think so. So I don't see how this helps us, but that seems to be the undercurrent inside the beltway.

Well, we know how to solve the problem in Gaza. Go to war with Iran. Insane. Why do they hate Iran and why do they hate Putin? Is it just because they want to feed their masters in the military industrial complex, unlike George Orwell's 1984? Remember Emanuel Goldstein? Everybody hated him. Turned out he didn't exist. He was just somebody the government created to be an object of their hatred. That's right. Well, look, I think you're asking a difficult question for which there's not an answer.

Yes, I realize that. There are a lot of donors out there with lots of agendas, and the donors have money. They can outspend, outperform anybody else. And when you're living in that environment, this idea of principles and approaches that we heard from Mr. Orban, which I think is a very good statement, suddenly is meaningless in Washington. And remember, Washington is a planet. It's not part of the rest of us. I don't know how many times I've tried to talk to people in Washington inside the Beltway, particularly members of the House, to a lesser extent, the Senate. There are a few that understand, but not very many. Life out there is not very good right now. The situation is very, very bad. And they say,

oh, yes, of course, of course. But we're confident we can cope with that. Well, if you live in a gated community, you live in Great Falls or McLean, if you're remote from reality, yeah, I suppose you can manage everything. Colonel, we have begun taking an informal, unscientific poll. Any of our viewers can weigh in. And the question we asked today was how much longer do you think the war would go on in Gaza? One month, three months, three to six months, more than six months. 47 percent, almost half, more than six months.

Surprised? No, I think Americans in particular, although admittedly, you have an audience overseas too, Judge. But Americans are beginning to wise up. Look at the numbers of Americans that say, wait a minute, I support Israel. I want Israel to survive. But why aren't we closing the border? Where are all the troops to protect us along our southern border? What's happened to the police? All the police are retiring. Nobody wants to be a policeman because the police are in greater fear of going to jail than if they do their jobs.

I mean, this is incomprehensible. I mean, you and I, I know I did, grew up in a world where we respected police. Yes. I mean, we did. And in many cases, we knew them. We didn't know them all, but we knew a lot of them and we weren't afraid of them. All of that is gone now because the police itself has no power and authority. It lives in fear of the attorney general or whoever he happens to be in that respective precinct or district or city. It's catastrophic. So why are you spending all of this money for everything else other than what's really important here? And oh, by the way, the bridges in my neighborhood are crumbling and are probably going to fall apart. I mean, all of this is part of the whole, correct? Correct. Correct. Conor McGregor, thank you very much. Again, thank you for helping us reach the 250,000. The sky's the limit when you're a regular on the show.

Deeply and profoundly grateful. I hope we can see you again next week. Oh, absolutely. And Merry Christmas to everybody and Happy New Year and all that stuff. Thank you. And back at you and all that stuff. All right. Bye-bye. Bye. What a great, great man and a great conversation. And for me, a great joy to be able to bring that to you. Coming up at three o'clock today, Scott Horton. And at four o'clock today, Professor Jeffrey Sachs.

Judge Napolitano for judging freedom. I'm