Judging Freedom - Col. Karen Kwaitkowski: Are We Close to World War III ?

Episode Date: January 30, 2024

Uncover the far-reaching consequences of the International Criminal Court's latest demands of Israel, as Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kowalski and I grapple with the fallout for U.S. global standing and the bipartisan push for war. With the Western media offering scant details, we pull back the curtain on U.S. military strategies in the Middle East, challenging the legality and motives behind the bases in Syria and Iraq. Our penetrating discussion doesn't shy away from the hard questions regarding the erosion of credibility that grips both the U.S. and Israel in the face of these allegations.The stakes soar as we scrutinize President Biden's authority to launch military strikes without a nod from Congress. In a year where political tensions simmer and elections loom, we scrutinize the ethical minefields of wartime decision-making, the weight of public opinion, and the potential sway of the political calendar on world events. Brace yourself for a candid analysis of the pressures President Biden faces, from plummeting popularity to navigating a politically charged battleground, all against the backdrop of the debate over executive power and democratic checks and balances.See 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 Tuesday, January 30th, 2024. Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski joins us now. Karen, always a pleasure, my dear friend. Welcome back to the show. You and I have discussed the case of South Africa against Israel at the International Criminal Court. The court voted 15 to 2 to say, well, don't do any genocide, and 16 to 1 with the Israeli justice voting with the 16 to demand a report in 30 days. I guess this is more symbolic than substantive. But did it burst any self-proclaimed Israeli aura of moral rectitude? Well, I think for much of the world it did.

You know, there was very little coverage of this in the Western media, and certainly I didn't see any news in the American media about this at all. So I think most Americans, we didn't get the benefit of actually having to look honestly at what is happening here. Much of the rest of the world, though, is viewing it, of course, honestly and critically. And fortunately, the United States has further lumped itself in with Israel's policy. So there's no daylight between the United States and Israel at all. And the rest of the world sees this, and it's a loss of credibility for the United States, for sure. I mean, Alistair Crook advises that this is still front page news on the websites and newspapers in Europe, but you really don't see any mention of it here at all any longer. I just wonder, I mean, it's a court. It doesn't have an army to enforce its

rulings. It only has the Security Council. The U.S. has a veto on the Security Council. We know how the U.S. would exercise that veto. But there is still the PR war, which Israel is severely, in my view, losing internationally. This is another strike against it. Long-winded question. My apology. Here's the short version of the question. Should the United States be on notice? Because under the Genocide Treaty, paying for genocide while knowing it's genocide is as guilty as performing the genocide. Oh, yeah. Yeah. I mean, I think, you know, what this really does is continue the destruction of both of the credibility of both of the political parties in the United States. You know, the Democrats have long been supportive of

the UN, supportive of the international court, you know, wanting to become more involved. Of course, in this case, they don't. The Republican Party has pushed away the, we don't think it's credible. We don't care George Bush and Dick Cheney were, you know, couldn't go places because of the ICC. So they don't respect it anyway. But the Democrats did. So now we don't have any political parties that can. They're in a different world. They're in a different space. And then the American people themselves, who I think intuitively understand which side is right here, which side is conducting genocide and which side is receiving genocide that we're paying for. I think most Americans instinctively get that, but neither one of the main political parties are able to even articulate a thing about it. So it kind of shows the weakness of our politics in this country. I think the American people are good people, but the institutions that are between us and our government are bad institutions and they're weak. And this demonstrates how weak they are. You and I have argued and have both written in

the same forums that when it comes to war, there is no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. Well, there are some liberal progressive Democrats on the left and some libertarian Republicans on the right. We could name them. There are so few. But for the most part, it's one pro-war party. Now, just look at what happened over the weekend at the border of Syria and Jordan and the nearly universal cries for vengeance. All right, Lindsey Graham and that crew want to bomb Tehran, and the Democrats want to be a little bit more moderate, but they all want us there and engaged in war. What in the name of heaven and earth were we doing with a military base

at the border of Syria and Jordan. Yeah, we're ensuring that the oil that we want to sell to Syria is being exported properly. We're doing that. We're fueling and training ISIS and some of the ISIS offshoots. Even though we say we're fighting ISIS, that's not true. And also, it's not just those few bases. I saw a map the other day that said we had 22 different bases in Syria and something like 16 or 17 in Iraq. So, you know, that is 40 bases that are unlawful because we don't have the permission of the Syrian government,

that's for sure. And Iraq has many times asked us to leave. So 40 bases in two countries right there in the hotspot that may very well be the beginning of World War III, or at least a wider war. We'll talk about that in a minute. I forget, has there been a congressional declaration of war that I missed? How could we have missed that? Yeah. No, I mean, the Congress has been, you know, cheerleading all of this and allowing they complain about the executive power on the one hand. But when it comes to making wars overseas and violating national norms and fighting. They're all about letting the executive do whatever it wants. Because, you know, again, our system, most of these congressmen make

money when there is a war going on. They make money and they get donations for their next campaign. They get invited to the parties they want to be invited to. Nobody criticizes them. I mean, look what happens when a few honest congressmen and senators stand up and say no war. Look at what happens to them. They're attacked from every side and primaried. And, you know, so the whole system is a pro-war system, which is unfortunate because I think it's a huge disconnect between what the American people want and what we are offered out of Washington. So this morning in the West Bank, in a peaceful neighborhood of a suburban town, a hospital was attacked.

It was attacked by Israeli intelligence officers dressed as health care workers. There's a scene in the hospital hallway dressed as health care workers and patients. Male and female Israeli intelligence operatives burst into a hospital room and assassinated three people, two brothers and another fellow, claiming they were Hamas leaders. Have you ever heard in your experience in the military or your knowledge of world history of an attack on a hospital by a state actor to assassinate patients in the hospital where the country from which the state actors came and the country in the hospital where the country from which the state actors came and the country where the hospital is located are not legally at war with each other i can't i can't think of an example like that um you know they say that things like this happen in

active war in at the end of wars when the losing side is desperate, you know, things like that. But to see it conducted consciously by what most people would consider the dominant player in this war, Israel, to see this kind of activity go on, it really spits in the face of any idea of just war, any idea of trust between opposing parties. I mean, yeah, this is amazing. And considering that this is our little project, the American project in the Middle East, this is the recipient of billions and billions of dollars every year. We are funding their current war in Gaza, which has extended to the West Bank, which is extending to Lebanon. We're funding this. We are enabling this. So what they are doing is apparently acceptable to the United States. It's certainly acceptable to the United States government. There's no doubt about that. So it's pretty shocking.

Say again? It's shocking is what it is. It is shocking. It's sickening. It makes you sick to your stomach to think that a patient in a hospital, what should be the safest, cleanest place in the world, and somebody comes in and machine guns you to death. I don't know if Joe Biden's been asked about this yet. We have a clip of him being asked what he's going to do with the attacks on the American troops at the Syrian-Jordanian border.

And, well, we'll run that clip. It's just about a half an hour or an hour old. He really doesn't answer anything, and it shows him being a little out of it and simply teasing with the press. Chris, do we have that clip? Yes. Mr. President, how do you make decisions? I do hold them responsible in the sense that they're supplying the weapons to the people who did it. We'll have that discussion. How do you respond to those attorneys' attacks in the past?

What will be different this time? We'll see. He doesn't really answer anything. Your colleague Matt Hosts reminds us that the passage of time between the deaths of these American soldiers and the present is to get the Americans time to get assets in place. It may also take some time to confer with other countries. I mean, I don't know what countries they're going to confer with, but there'll be problems in Moscow if they listen to Lindsey Graham's advice and bomb Tehran, I would think. The Russians and the Iranians have a handshake on a deal. It's not yet signed, but a handshake on a mutual defense compact. Yeah, that's going to be a problem.

You know, it's interesting, though, that Biden, for all of his incompetence, said very clearly that he holds Iran responsible because they are funding Hamas. In his this is his words. He just said that. So clearly, he's not stupid enough. I mean, he's not so stupid, I guess, that he doesn't understand that's exactly what we're doing in terms of this genocide in Gaza. And as the war extends and we participate on the side of Israel, you know, we're doing exactly the same thing. So, you know, I think it's not clear. You know, Iran has denied funding and planning any of these attacks, but, you know, we haven't. So in a sense, if any of those countries decide to react, Joe Biden admits we're clear targets. We are fair game in terms of their response to Israel.

We are certainly fair game. And he's as much as said that. Now, you know, it's hard to say what he's thinking at any given time. He seems, I think he struggles. Well, Karen, Colonel, this is a brilliant analysis. If Iran is responsible for the Houthis or whoever it was that attacked the American troops because Iran paid for it, then the United States is responsible for the genocide in Gaza now spreading to the West Bank. That, out of the mouth of the President of the United States, of course, he didn't add the second part in there. He can't do that and expect to get away with it politically. But his rationale is right there.

How reckless will it be if the United States listens to Lindsey Graham and co. and attacks Iran? Well, you know, from a military perspective, it's extremely reckless. And I'm sure what they're trying to do is to have some sort of symbolic strike, very much in line with how Israel has struck in the past inside of Iran. You know, the symbolic strikes, maybe they hit this target or that, and then they pull back. Because from a military perspective, we're not going to engage Iran in a war and prevail. That's not going to happen. The whole world is not going to allow that to happen, number one, because of the importance of that part of the

world for energy flow and that kind of thing. But even if we had many friends in the world, which we no longer do, but assuming we had many friends, we still, from a military perspective, cannot take over Iran. We cannot control Iran. We cannot physically with an army invade Iran. And there's most places in Iran we can't destroy from the air or from the sea. So it's kind of a dead end in terms of a military action. So I don't think that anybody in the military is going to say, okay, let's do a, let's pull a big Zelensky, you know, and wipe out our entire military because we want to go up against this enemy that we really have no hope against getting our way.

So, yes, I think it'll be a symbolic response. And I hope it will be a symbolic response, because at least if it is that, then we can still be talking to each other. We can still move forward because of it is an out of control response that then engenders a global response against the United States. We are not in a good position to really do well in that situation. Here's a cut. It's long. It's two and a half minutes, but it's worth watching and listening to. Number six, Chris, this is a back and forth between Admiral Kirby in the White House earlier today and a journalist by the name of Kimberly Halkett, who is an American but works for Al Jazeera. These are questions that John Kirby does not want to answer. And you will see

from the look on his face and you will hear, the look on his face, and you will hear, you will watch his body language, and you will hear his words. He does not want to answer this woman's questions, and the questions are spot on. You said that the president, in his response, has authorization under Article 2. Does that mean that he's planning to bypass Congress in any matter of war in terms of this response? I'm not going to get ahead of his decision-making. He has the authority under Article 2 as commander-in-chief. And as we have in the past, so we will in the future,

appropriately inform leaders in Congress about what we're doing in keeping with that authority. Okay, so I just want to follow up, because the President was sent a letter on Friday from a bipartisan group of lawmakers, and he had been accused of unauthorized strikes against the Houthis by bypassing Congress. They said no president, regardless of political party, has the constitutional authority to bypass Congress on matters of war. Do you think that that would apply here, given this escalation? We're not at war with the Houthis.

We're not looking for a war with Iran. The president is comfortable that he has the appropriate legal authorities to act in self-defense of our ships, our sailors, our troops, and our facilities at sea or shore. Right, but isn't it time to involve the American people? I mean, given the fact that the American people were not happy about, I mean, all- I suspect the American people are not happy about attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea. I also suspect they're not happy about seeing American troops killed at a base in Jordan.

The president has the authority to defend those troops in those facilities, and he'll do that. The president is weighing all of his options. This is an election year. Is the President looking at his polling when he's weighing all of these options? Is the President looking at what? My goodness, that's a heck of a question. He's not looking. Ma'am, ma'am, ma'am, let me just stop you right there. Let me finish my question.

The Commander-in-Chief is not looking at polling or considering the electoral calendar when he's defending... He's not looking at how they feel about the war on Gaza. Now, can I answer the question? He's not looking at political calculations or the polling or the electoral calendar as he works to protect our troops ashore and our ships at sea. And any suggestion to the contrary is offensive. Is he looking at the polling with respect to does the American public want a broader

Middle East conflict when he weighs his political decision making? Ma'am, I've answered that question. Okay, let's go. You didn't answer that question. Is he weighing that? He is not concerning himself with the political calendar. Does the American public have the opportunity to weigh in on whether they want to get in America

and stand on the bombs that are going to be dropped. We're going to move on. Go ahead, Phil. Thanks, Green. Well, I thought she was terrific. Does the president want to start a war? Does he want to start it on his own? Doesn't he realize he has to consult with the Congress? Does he think the American people want another war?

These are profound and legitimate questions, which his boss on the ellipse of the White House, about to get on the helicopter, could not answer. Yeah. Well, you know, it's interesting how angry Kirby got when they suggested that the political calendar of 2024 is part of these decisions that he's making. And it absolutely is. The whole world is watching the United States political calendar.

Our elections, and of course I think a third of the countries in the world have elections in the fall or sometime in 2024. But the United States elections are being talked about globally. There's no doubt. So we have a president who is attempting an unprecedented run for re-election. The first one he campaigned from his basement, and this one he has clearly got medical issues, is continuing to to insist that he will run. They are shutting down other Democrats there in the primaries. They are trying to block RFK Jr., who would be a very attractive candidate for either party, really. But certainly he comes from a Democratic tradition.

They're blocking him from even getting on ballots in any of the states. You know, they're worried about Trump with this, the huge number of, you know, lawfare and legal attacks and reputational attacks, you know, the whole business with everything they can do against Trump. That is everything the United States is talking about at home. And it's a lot of what the foreign countries are talking about. So Kirby got a little bit unhappy with that question. And I think it's because we were over the target. Somebody was over the target with that question. Clearly, this is the major topic of conversation. Can Biden take this country to an unpopular, unnecessary, illegal, unlawful and illegal war

in the last eight months of an election year, in which he's running for president for re-election with the lowest popularity numbers that we've seen for most presidents. I mean, he's pretty, I don't know if he's the lowest, but he's among those. So clearly Kirby got a little upset. And I guess maybe it's because Kirby's job is at stake. You know, I mean, maybe Kirby wants to work for another eight months and he values his job. I don't know. But, you know, the idea that that this is an illegal actions article business is not that's not valid. OK, it hasn't been valid. You know, the way they misuse the War Powers Act, since Nixon has not been valid. This is, this is an abuse of power. You know, the Americans should be concerned, and people like

this reporter should be asking questions like this constantly, and actually, just from watching that, I think that more people will try to get under Kirby's skin. Clearly, that was a, Kirby was, did he, what did he say, offended? He was, he thought it was offensive. Yeah. He needs to learn the meaning of that word offensive, considering what his administration is doing in Gaza. You argued right before the, we ran the Kirby clip with the reporter from Al Jazeera, that the United States could not sustain a war against Iran, either on the ground, from the sea, or from the air. Is that a generally universally held view in the military? Does the White House understand that? Are we about to see sort of pinpricks or are we about to see an ill-fated invasion?

Well, the invasion part is, I know when I was in the military and anyone who studies the geography and the politics of that region, the United States Army, Air Force, Navy, Navy Marines are not going to ever invade Iran. They're not going to do it successfully. It is almost an impossible act. I mean, we talk about a two-front war, a three-front war. We couldn't do that if it was a single-front war, and all of our forces were focused on that. It is just impossible to do that with what you face in Iran. I mean, Iran actually has a, you know, they have a society. They have an economy. They have a lot of people, but it's the geography that is the hardest part. So far from home, with increasingly people that aren't going to give us flyover. They're not going to give us, they're trying to kick our troops out

of their countries. They're targeting our supply depots that are in forward locations. Increasingly, sustaining such a, such a, any type of long-term thing is not going to happen. In fact, we can't even, from what I understand, we cannot even sustain the operation in the Red Sea based on the rate of consumption of our resources, particularly the weapons that we're firing against the Houthis and whatnot, but the fuel, the maintenance of the ships and the Navy, which that's largely a Navy operation, has historically been a little bit better than than the army in recruiting. They are they're down. They can't even recruit people. They can't recruit people and train people. So the sustaining of what is in the minds of our government, they have this vision. We can do this and we can do that.

They must have read it in a book. In reality, we don't have the ability to sustain nearly anything that they're imagining. We cannot continue. And as we saw with Ukraine, even though we've had two years to pump up our production of certain munitions and weapon systems that we want to give to Ukraine, we haven't been able to bring it up to the level that would even help that country. So this is, it really is insanity.

And it's not necessary that it be this way. The facts are there. But I don't think we have leaders in the Pentagon who are able to communicate to this. And I think they're so ideological about what it is they're trying to do and what they think they have to do, again, because it is an election year, that it's just, you know, we cannot communicate with our own government. And they will get us into trouble. Well, this is very important, Karen. Ray McGovern and Larry Johnson have been telling us for two years that the intelligence community tells the White House what they think

the White House wants to hear, even if it's the opposite of the raw intel on the ground and from other sources. Question, is the military the same way? Will the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from the Air Force tell President Biden, oh yeah, we can invade Iran, we can do this, we can do that? Or will they tell him an unvarnished version like the one you just gave us? No, they won't tell him an unvarnished version. And I think we saw this just a little bit in a small way. The Secretary of Defense could not even bring himself to tell Biden he was going to be in the hospital, that he had to be taken, you know, he had a relapse and he had to stay in the hospital for two weeks. He couldn't tell his own boss that. Why? I don't know. Would the boss be upset and say, no, no, you can't do that.

I mean, I don't know what it is. But that inability to communicate, even on matters of limited importance, I think that is reflected throughout the whole system. So on matters of great importance, no, no, they're not communicating. Well, maybe, you know, maybe it'll go away. And again, we saw this with Trump as well. When Trump said to the Pentagon, I need you to pull these troops out from here or there, which because his whole effort was very much something. It was not happening. So it's not just that they won't tell them the truth, that they will lie to them for their own agenda. The agenda, unfortunately, is not a pro-America agenda. It is not an agenda that defends this country. And it's not an agenda that is held by the people in this country. We want a military that defends us. And we certainly, certainly expect our officers to tell the truth at all times. And we're not getting that. Colonel Kwiatkowski, a pleasure, my dear friend. No matter how unpleasant these issues are, thank you for your candor and unique perspective. Please come back again, same time,

same day next week. Absolutely. Thank you, Jeff. Thank you, Karen. Thank you. All the best. Another, from my view, wonderful, wonderful conversation because of our enlightened guest, a hero to many of you in an hour at 430, Scott Ritter. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. freedom.