Judging Freedom - Col. Douglas Macgregor : US Dangerous Foreign Policy

Episode Date: July 31, 2024

Col. Douglas Macgregor : US Dangerous Foreign PolicySee 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 Wednesday, July 31st, 2024. Colonel Douglas McGregor joins us now. Colonel, I missed you while I was away. Two very quiet weeks, sure, but a lot to talk about. Some of the events that happened while I was gone and while we were both off air and some more recent, but thank you for your time, sir. Very much appreciated. Well, let me say that I absolutely do not believe you. I think that you cruised comfortably on Lake Como, kicked back on the beach, sat in your villa, and did not give a single thought to me.

But, you know, thanks. I wish that I had had that luxury, but events are the things that control us, as Mark Twain once said. Colonel, this afternoon, Prime Minister Netanyahu addressed the Israeli public, well, it was this evening, Israel time, boasting about chopping off the heads, metaphorically, of Hamas and Hezbollah. hasn't directly taken credit for the assassination in Beirut and the assassination in Tehran. It's obvious that they did this because they're boasting about it. How can a mediation aimed at a ceasefire succeed when one side murders the chief negotiator on the other side?

The simple answer is it cannot. And I don't think that's accidental because I don't see much evidence that Mr. Netanyahu and his government are interested in peace of any kind. They're interested right now in exploiting what they consider to be their strategic superiority that results in large part from the unconditional backing they presumably are going to get from us. Does the IDF have strategic superiority, even if Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and Donald Trump said, don't worry, we're with you? Yeah, I think so. First of all, there's nobody else in the region that really has an air force that can possibly match the israelis in terms of either technology or performance you'd have to turn to european states

russia perhaps china i i don't think the turkish air force is in the same category but as we both know there has been a paradigm shift in warfare. We live in the age of missiles and precision strike and ISR dominance overhead and around the world. Those things are not necessarily entirely in Israeli hands. They certainly have no monopoly on it. So I think it's dangerous to do what they've done. But right at the moment,. It doesn't want to fight any more wars. It's largely a reservist military. If all of that or most of that is true, are they in any shape to go into Lebanon? Well, I think there's a lot of truth to what you're saying. But remember, when you talk about the Israeli Defense Force, yes, you're right.

It's essentially a large version of the U.S. Army National Guard. These are citizen soldiers. You say reservists. I think that's accurate. They have sustained a lot of casualties. There are all sorts of numbers going around. Obviously, nobody on either side of the equation right now in the region has any interest in telling the truth. But the Israeli ground force, I think, has the expectation that the Israeli Defense Forces Air Force will strike decisive blows

that will make their progress on the ground easier in southern Lebanon than it might otherwise be. And I mentioned before, I think that they're quite prepared to use tactical nuclear weapons in southern Lebanon. Does the Iranian military have sufficient drones and missiles and other projectiles with which to cause grievous injury to the Israeli military and the Israeli state? Oh, yes. I don't think there's any question about that. And what's really truly dangerous at this point is that a lot of the Israeli population in the north, as well as in the south, has been withdrawn into central Israel, which means that you now have a higher concentration of population with the kind of

density that presents your opponent with an opportunity to kill large numbers of Israelis. So yeah, I think that the Iranians have plenty of missiles, really, which is what you're talking about, not just drones, to the point where they could exhaust any air defenses and do enormous damage now of course the question is will the israelis wait for that this goes into a discussion of preemptive warfare the israelis have done that before it's not impossibly that possible depending upon what they decide to do in South Lebanon, that they strike first and hardest. Colonel, do we know who killed the Druze, the 16 Druze teenage soccer players in the Golan Heights? Does it make any sense that Hezbollah would have killed its own children?

No, no, obviously that's not the case. And I think that increasingly is obvious. Was it an Iron Dome fragment or was it the fragment of a Hezbollah missile that had been struck by an Iron Dome anti-missile? We don't know. I'm sure people on the ground that have inspected the wreckage can tell,

but there was certainly no deliberate attempt on the part of Hezbollah to strike anybody in that particular area in the Golan Heights. Yet the Israelis will use it as an excuse to expand war. Do you think some sort of a deal was cut by Netanyahu after his speech and in a back room, which gave him the self-confidence to expand a war that he alone cannot win and that he must know that he alone cannot win? I'm sorry for the long winded question. Well, as I think I said a few weeks ago, that was one of the reasons for the trip. Everybody likes to point to the fact that Mr. Netanyahu wanted to strengthen his political position at home by signaling that he is still in charge in Washington. Well, that may be true, but being in charge in Washington is of no use

unless you can extract something for it. He was in Washington to extract the support of the United States Armed Forces in the event that he becomes embroiled in a war with Hezbollah as well as Iran. And I think he got it. I mean, I don't know what the provisions were, but I think he's got it. And we're certainly prepared to fly strikes in support of the IDF. I wouldn't be surprised if we have strike packages in the Middle West, bombers and so forth, ready to fly in that direction as well. So again, whatever we do will be air and missile oriented. What you will not see, we've discussed this before, is the arrival of large numbers of ground troops, simply because we don't have them to send.

When you say air and missile, do you mean manned air? Do you mean pilots who could be shot down? Yes, absolutely. I think that you can expect that we'll have certainly naval air, in other words, carrier-based air. And as I said before, you could fly bombers from the continental United States. Whether or not we're prepared to employ Air Force elements from bases in the region, that's a question I can't answer.

I would presume yes. Now, one of the places that we will not use, I'm quite certain, is Turkey, because the Turks have really become enraged over what has happened in the region. And Mr. Erdogan, I think finally, after listening to his National Defense Council, finally decided to speak publicly and warn that if the Israelis go into southern Lebanon, that that could be a trigger for the introduction of Turkish military power into the operation. We've got to do that. Here's President Erdogan on Monday, just two days ago.

Cut number five, Chris. What was our import-export ratio in the defense industry? Where have we come to? But my dear brothers and sisters, let none of these fool us or should deceive us. We must be very strong so that this, we will do the same to them. There is no reason for us not to. We only have to be strong so that we can take these steps. Ronald, is this a serious threat for Turkish ground troops to enter Israel?

Well, let's back up a little bit and understand that to this point, Erdogan has turned out to be something of a blowhard. Right. And oil has continued to move through Turkey into Israel to fuel Israeli military power so I think we have to look carefully at whether or not something has changed and I think that the something that's changed is not what's happening in Palestine because if he felt compelled to do something he could have done something a long time ago it's the possibility that Lebanon is destroyed in a in a major war with Israel that would provoke massive Exodus of people out of Lebanon which of course is what the Israelis would like to see but I don't think the Turks are willing to take any more refugees they've already got a couple of million

on their hands I think that's the real question what will they they do? Well, he can put the fleet to sea. He can act decisively on Cyprus to ensure he's got a secure base there that he can use. And there's nothing to stop him from committing Turkish ground forces. But the problem for him is to move those forces through Syria to Israel, which is where they would have to go. And the Israelis obviously have perfect visibility over Syria and can do a lot of damage to his forces if they try that. So you're talking about a very complex operation if he's actually going to challenge the Israelis in Lebanon. It's not just Lebanon, it's going to involve the whole region. Let's go back to your comment a few moments ago about the use of American naval-based air power. Can the Iranians, can Hezbollah sink an American aircraft carrier? to keep something in mind we can place those carriers far enough out of range that they could

potentially launch aircraft against targets in lebanon and do so without fear of losing the carrier now i i don't know what the exact ranges are they certainly can range to the eastern mediterranean with the missiles that they have they are precise and they will have the benefit of satellite-based guidance and support, intelligence and so forth. But one of the things that people don't understand about carriers is sinking it is not the principal challenge with a carrier. What you really want to do is damage the flight deck. If you damage the flight deck, you put the carrier out of business. It doesn't matter what the carrier does at that point. It can't launch aircraft. In addition to that, if you can damage the carrier such that it ends up dead in the water, that's even better because

then other ships will come to its aid and then you have a much better target array and the opportunity to do even more damage. I'm sure all of these things are being carefully considered. Colonel, what does Israel accomplish other than a PR victory by these targeted assassinations? Isn't it like whack-a-mole? I mean, you assassinate one leader and another one, maybe younger, maybe more passionate, maybe more fierce in his opposition, will replace him? Well, this was the argument against killing General Soleimani, who headed the Revolutionary Guard Corps. He was killed while he was visiting in Iraq. Some people next to him were killed who were high-ranking Iraqi militia leaders. We decided to do that, I think, really because Mr. Netanyahu insisted upon it. And ultimately, President Trump bent to the will of the Senate and other Israeli supporters. I think it probably cheered everybody up in Israel.

They thought they'd won a great victory. Now, I'm asking you, is there any evidence that killing Soleimani has made any difference to the growth, development, and expansion of Iranian military power? None that I know of. So you've answered your own question. These assassination missions don't have the desired effect. If anything, they tend to strengthen resolve and opposition against you. So no, I don't think it makes any sense. Other than the signal, we're really not interested in a peace deal that doesn't meet our demands. And our demands are everybody in Gaza leaves or is killed. And ultimately, we want to do something similar

in Palestine. And oh, by the way, if you're south of the Latani River in Hezbollah, you're going to be destroyed. And I think that's the message they're sending. So it's not going to change anything. And I think that's the message they're sending. So it's not going to change anything except to make a war almost inevitable. Does Israel care that the ICJ ruled that its occupation of the Golan Heights and the West Bank is contrary to international law? No, no, absolutely not. The thing to keep in mind is this. When those wars ended, it made a great deal of sense for the Israelis to hold on to the Golan Heights. I don't know if you've ever been there, but if you go there, you understand strategically, it's like a sloping hill that rushes from Damascus down to Israel. And then all of a sudden, you have this great rise, which we call the Golan Heights in front of you. And on one side, you have mountains. On the other side, you have low hills. So it's a very strategically commanding position. If I were an Israeli,

I would never give it up. The problem that Israel has now is that they provoke this larger war. They've attracted attention to themselves, and they put themselves in the unfortunate position of being demonized by virtually everybody in the world except us. Does Netanyahu, as far as you understand, recognize the danger of attacking Hezbollah and likely bringing Iran into the fray? And does he fear that behind Iran might be Vladimir Putin? Well, the answer to the first question is

absolutely yes. The Israelis know this. They know that Hezbollah will be the toughest fight of their lives, which is why I think that they would be prepared to use tactical nuclear weapons against Hezbollah. And that will do a lot of damage. Now, consider that many of the Hezbollah fighters and their capabilities are below ground. They're not obviously on the surface. Can they withstand that kind of detonation? I don't know. I can't evaluate that. I suspect in some areas, yes, and in other areas, no. But that's the sort of preparation, or its equivalent in conventional terms, that you will see before any IDF ground forces go in to theoretically clean out whatever remains.

Now, as far as Russia is concerned, I think that's another issue for Mr. Netanyahu with the United States. I'm sure he knows that if he attacks Hezbollah along the lines that I'm describing, and I think that's what would happen, Iran will definitely enter the fray. He has not got, and neither do we, by the way, enough air defense capability to stop most of what would be thrown at Israel. So Israel will very definitely take serious losses, both human and infrastructure. At that point, the question is, what do they do towards Iran? And they may decide that the use of a nuclear weapon is now something that they can justify, and they may try to use that against Iran if that were to happen it strikes me as a near certainty that Russia and probably also the Chinese with the Russians potentially other nations the Pakistanis and I think at that point even the Turks who have held their fire for a long time would all feel justified in turning on Israel.

And if we decide that we're going to intervene in this sort of thing, they will confront us with the reality that they will fight us. What is a tactical nuclear weapon? Most people, when they think of nuclear weapons, I think, have an image of Nagasaki or Hiroshima. And imagine we're talking about something far less than that. Well, usually, but not always, we refer to it as something less than five kilotons. What does a five kiloton nuclear weapon do? If we look at Washington, D.C., and a five kiloton nuclear weapon were used on the White House, certainly everything within a four to five mile radius would be destroyed. But you would leave the rest of

Washington largely intact, as opposed to the kind of megatonnage that an intercontinental ballistic missile would deliver. So I think that's the sort of thing that you could conceivably witness in southern Lebanon. Colonel, switching gears, Chris, would you put up the B-roll that you just texted me about? Did this surprise you at all, Colonel? These are Russian and Chinese jets flying within a few miles of Alaska? No. Why would we be surprised? From the very beginning, I and many others have warned of Russia's capability to escalate horizontally. And Putin has said as much, straightforward way by saying,

look, you're coming into our backyard. You're moving into Ukraine, which is the equivalent of Mexico for our purposes. You're building a hostile army. Potentially you want to place missiles there and you don't think that we can do something similar to you. Well, you're wrong. And so we've already seen this. We saw it with the arrival of just one Soviet nuclear attack submarine in Cuba and some vessels, but they're the tip of an iceberg. We have missile boats, Russian missile boats in both the Atlantic and the Pacific. Our boats are out there trying to chase them, keep track of them, maintain contact with them. It's not the surface vessels per se that we worry about. It's the submarines. The surface vessels are really almost dinosaurs in today's

world because they're easy targets. And they have to be so far away from you to survive that they probably don't make much difference. So it's really the submarines that are an issue. Now, you've also got North Korea. North Korea has never been a Chinese satellite. It has always been a Soviet and now a Russian satellite or colony. All of the missile technology that the North Koreans have gotten comes from Russia. It started in the aftermath of the Soviet collapse. Soviet scientists went there to earn money, and they were paid handsomely and provided whatever they want in return for which they could build these missiles. Now, North Korea has a substantial nuclear capability, warhead production capability, as well as missiles. That's only gotten stronger because whenever we attempt to threaten russia

russia reaches to north korea and says it's time for you to wake up and get to work north korea is a permanent catalyst for conflict in the region the chinese dislike them intensely obviously the south koreans don't like it the Koreans don't like it. The Japanese don't like it. And then you turn to what you just described. These patrols now with the Chinese and the Russians are sending a signal. To attack one of us is to attack both of us. They're serious. We need to take it seriously. I wonder if Secretaries Blinken and Austin do take it seriously, Colonel? Well, I think in the Department of Defense, when you go into the joint staff at the top of the services, there are real concerns. I know that this General Brown, who is the chairman

in a sort of fit of bravado, told everyone that in a war with China, we would definitely win. Well, first of all, we need to define what is we would definitely win well first of all we need to define what is meant by the war and secondly we need to define winning there aren't going to be any winners if the chinese and we escalate to the nuclear level and the assumption that our air power is invincible and vulnerable and immune is simply untrue we haven't flown against any integrated air defenses, Russian or Chinese or otherwise. We may get a chance now, finally, if we end up fighting with the Iranians and

potentially against the Turks. I hope not. But there's a lot of bravado right now. But beneath the surface, people are much more realistic. Remember, we can't produce missiles and rockets fast enough to keep up with the demand in war. The truth is that within a week, at best, most of our missile stocks would be exhausted. And that's the problem. We're not prepped to do anything for any length of time, whereas Russia has now built a substantial capability that will last for months, if not years. And I think the Chinese are right behind them. All of the media attention in the past couple of weeks has been on the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, the withdrawal from the presidential race of Joe Biden, the arrival

and speech before Congress of Benjamin Netanyahu, the major parts of the internet down for four or five days, all of this happening in rapid fire succession. What is happening in Ukraine? Are the Russians continuing to march largely unimpeded westward? Are they continuing to kill large numbers of Ukrainian soldiers? Well, the losses remain what they were the last time we spoke, roughly 1,500 to 2,000 Ukrainian soldiers a day. Wow. Perhaps half or more of that killed. Remember that the Ukrainian armed forces do not have at this point a very developed

casualty evacuation system. Their hospitals are overwhelmed, overburdened. It's a terrible situation. The Russians are in no hurry. I think you've got President Putin who looks at the strategic landscape and says several things. First of all, Europe is falling apart. It's only a matter of time until the insane ruling elite, the globalist elite, if you will, that has dragged Europe into this abyss that we've created for them is gone. If you wait long enough, you're going to see new governments emerge in Paris and Berlin and so forth. This is going to happen whether the CIA and MI6 want it to happen or not. It could even happen in London. Certainly could happen

in Scandinavia and other countries. So that's part of it. The other part is there's an election, at least in theory, that's going to happen in November. The Russians don't understand our political system, nor do they understand how hopelessly rigged and corrupt our voting system is. But I think they're going to take the position well why don't we wait and see who comes out on top in november and we may see a change of direction in the united states or washington of course that that's problematic then the third thing is remember the russians don't want to rule ukrainians i mean if they have to cross the Dnieper River and head west, they can do it. There's certainly nothing to stop them. But that means that they've got to go in and eventually

take at least administrative control and responsibility as a government for Western Ukraine. They don't want it. They don't want anything to do with it. They know the Ukrainians don't want them and they don't want them. They're sitting on the terrain right now that is overwhelmingly Russian. That's what they've done. They want to consolidate that. They want to make it part of Russia because the people there are Russians. They went in to liberate them from the oppressive Ukrainian government. So it's a kind of interesting situation where you have the reluctant victor the unwilling Conqueror I mean if you look at the map you could go all the way out to that uh black line beyond bakhmut and not Advika right you could conceivably go up to Zaborisha you know you obviously Kharkov kupyansk but when

you go much further you you're just overrunning Ukrainian areas where the people really are Ukrainian. I don't think they want to do it. They have no appetite for it. This is part of the big lie that's been perpetrated by the neocons in the various lobbies

that, oh yeah, Putin wants to conquer Eastern Europe. Oh yeah, he can't wait. It's absurd. It's nonsense. It's expensive. It's unnecessary. It's counterproductive. Chris, put the map up again. Can you make a fair argument, Colonel, that the Russians have virtually come very close to achieving their end goals already? Oh, I think so. I mean, the only things that remain for them really are Odessa and Kharkov, because those are two historically Russian cities with large Russian-speaking populations. And they would like to see those back under Russian control.

And up until recently, there was some discussion of a willingness to negotiate over Odessa. Again, we assume that if the Russians control Odessa, that nothing can move in or leave Odessa from Ukraine. And I don't think there's any particular interest in that. They would like to see this neo-Nazi fascist regime steeped in corruption removed from Kiev. They have not wanted to go in and do it themselves. They would prefer that the Ukrainians dispose of these people the way the Italians disposed of Mussolini. That may yet happen too. We don't know. Anything is possible at this point because the government in Ukraine is on its last legs. The Ukrainian nation is dying, frankly. They have no more men to spend and dragging them back from overseas is not working very well. Governments around Ukraine

are unwilling to become press gangs for this corrupt Ukrainian government. So right now, I think Mr. Putin wants to wait. If he's pushed hard, he'll move. But this doesn't make any difference to Russian responses to what might happen in the Middle East. I think it's a mistake to assume that we have somehow or another tied down the Russians in a way that makes it impossible for them to intervene decisively on the side of Iran or even Turkey if Turkey were to enter the fray. That's a mistake. They could and they will. Here's what the British military thinks of the state of affairs in Ukraine today. It's a bit absurd, but I'd like you to comment on it. It's from yesterday, cut number 11.

It's costing them over 1,000 troops a day. In the past 24 hours, the Russians have them over 1,000 troops a day. In the past 24 hours, the Russians have lost over 1,300 troops. They've lost over 28 artillery systems. They've lost over 12 tanks. And they're losing those sorts of numbers on a daily basis. And that is, frankly, unsustainable, no matter how big your military force is, no matter how capable it is. Do you agree with any of that?

Not really. You know, you would lose in a normal war 12 tanks a day just to mechanical problems. That's possible. The rest of it just sounds fantastic to me. I mean, Russia has taken losses, but all of those losses have been dwarfed by what the Ukrainians have taken. Russians also have no problems with recruiting. They have no problems with manpower. They've got all that they need, and they've got plenty of people who will volunteer to fight.

I don't see the evidence for his statements. But then again, remember, we continue to live the lie about what's happening in Ukraine until we can't. That's the mentality. It always reminds me of that final scene in Untergang, the end of Hitler's regime, where one of the ladies in the hallway turns to Hitler just before he walks into his room and shoots himself and says, but mein Fuhrer, what about the inevitable victory?

And of course, he looks at her and scoffs, goes into the room and shoots himself. So I think he's in the same category with those foolish people that believed what they believed until the Soviet and American forces actually arrived in Berlin. Here's President Putin commenting on the Western buildup of missiles in Germany. I'd like you to pay careful attention to what he says at the very end. We will take mirror measures. Cut number one. The situation recalls the events of the Cold War era. If the U.S. implements such plans, we will consider ourselves free from the previously imposed one-sided moratorium on the deployment of medium and shorter range strike systems.

We will take mirror measures for their deployment. I believe he's talking about the American and Western threats to use missiles that were once negated by a treaty until President Trump pulled us out of the treaty. And now he's saying we'll take mirror measures to resist it. What does he mean? Well, some of your viewers will remember the Intermediate Nuclear Force Treaty, which eliminated the old Pershing II class of missiles and warheads. And we're in a similar situation. We're now threatening to deploy that kind of capability to Germany, potentially, I would say, also Western Poland. I'd be surprised if that were not part of it. and that reduces the flight time 10 to 15 minutes from those locations to the soviet nuclear arsenal and obviously to their early warning radars and other

important military installations bound up with the russian deterrent and he's saying not which i think is very important not that will bill outbuild you and create a bigger, superior missile force. He's simply saying, we will match your actions. I think that's, from my standpoint, I'm happier to hear that than I am to hear what I think we would have heard from Brezhnev and Dropov and so forth, which is, I'm going to overwhelm you and build more than you've ever seen. You know, this is all tragic because it's all unnecessary. We destroyed the structure of arms control. Now, arms control was never popular with the neocons in Washington, D.C.,

who are always interested in bullying everybody and believe in overwhelming strength that can be employed at will. That's very dangerous, as you and I know, in the nuclear age. It's not a good answer anyway. But that's been the attitude among those who don't like arms control. Arms control in and of itself is never enough. You have to pay attention. You have to maintain surveillance. You have to maintain vigilance. You have to pay attention. You have to maintain surveillance. You have to maintain vigilance. You have to ensure that your capability is enough to deter. That's very different, though, from what we are talking about. We don't need that capability in Germany or Western Poland to deter anything. In fact, what we're doing is something that's very provocative

that could result in not just what he's saying, but potentially a war that nobody really wants, no one in their right mind. So the structure of arms control is never enough on its own, and we understand that. But to throw it all out was never a good idea. And remember that during the period of time when we were reliant on many of these treaties, we would from time to time discover what we thought was a breach of the agreement in some fashion. And then you have to make a decision. Do I go ahead and protest this and then alert the Soviet opponent to the idea that we know about them more than they would like us to know? In other words, do we want to reveal that our intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance complex is that good? And so many times we've overlooked their breaches. They've also overlooked ours. And we have breached some of these

agreements. The notion that we're wearing white hats and are all Eagle Scouts is misleading. The whole thing is a disaster. It all needs to stop. But you can't get anybody in Washington to think that way because, again, Washington is donor-occupied territory. Everyone is being brainwashed anyway about the imminent threats that are presented that don't exist. And so everyone will ignore you if you suggest that this is a bad idea. But it's a very bad idea. And what's developing is extremely dangerous. Colonel Douglas McGregor, a great conversation.

We went a little longer than usual, but everybody misses you, and not the least of whom is I. Thank you very much for your time, dear friend. I hope we can visit with you again next week. Okay. And just to make sure I go with with you again next week. Okay. And just to make sure I go with you to Italy next time. Deal. Bye-bye. You got it on tape. All the best. Thank you. A great conversation with a brilliant and courageous man. Coming up at three o'clock

Eastern, another brilliant and courageous man, Phil Giraldi. Did the Knesset actually debate whether or not they could torture Palestinian prisoners legally? Phil will discuss it. Justin Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thanks for watching!