Judging Freedom - Col. Tony Shaffer: Will Biden’s Weakness Lead the US into WWIII?

Episode Date: November 2, 2023

Expert Intelligence Answering the Hard Questions from the Judge, And the Col. was exactly right, with Top Tier Intelligence.-Guns were given out today at Contingency weak points where Urban warfare issues could arise as a Force Multiplier to defend against enemy attacks.-Hamas Infiltrated up to the Commander Level and was able to disarm the IDF Sentry Grenade Launchers that guarded the perimeter as well as radar system was turned off for a planned timed staged invasion working with infiltrators-Once Israel is done clearing back a safer perimeter, holding off on bombing can cool tensions between nations until threats arise outside the Perimeter again will be dealt with in the same fashion at the time of need.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 Wednesday, October 25th, two months to Christmas. Colonel Tony Schaefer joins us now. Tony, always a pleasure. Thanks very much for coming back on the show. What does the United States want? What does the U.S. hope to accomplish in aid to Israel in its invasion of Gaza? It's important to take a step back. And it's not just about what they want for Gaza. It's what they're trying to accomplish. You can sum up what the Biden administration is trying to do in a couple of sentences. And the primary sentences, they're

trying not to lose. They're not trying to win. They're not trying to accomplish anything. They just don't want to lose. And I would argue that that's obvious from everything they do. It's never about trying to achieve some sort of an outcome or agreement. It's about feeling nice or being nice or having inclusion. And I would argue that this completely naive approach to foreign policy is actually detached from the reality which we face. So that's why you see this bifurcated policy regarding Hamas and the Palestinians. You see, in one instance, they've deployed a lieutenant general, a Marine Corps lieutenant general, who is going to be advising the Israeli military in their combat operations going into Gaza. At the same time, you got Biden behind the scenes working to give $100 million

to the Palestinians there and trying to slow down the invasion by saying, don't invade yet, we're negotiating. So that's not a coherent policy. It's like you're literally working against yourself. You're doing things against both ends and you're not going to achieve anything. Instead of achieving, they basically have failed to establish clear thinking that would be critical as the baseline for a clear policy. There is no clear policy. What is the purpose of 2,000 Marines offshore in an aircraft carrier? So there's two carrier battle groups. There's Gerald R. Ford, which is, I think, the one you're referring to, plus a second, the Eisenhower carrier battle group, which is steaming, and I believe

it's going to go to the Red Sea. At least I think that's what they're thinking. And the two carrier battle groups are there for, the specific term of art is strategic deterrence. The idea overall, and by the way, Richard Nixon did this too, back in 73, during the 73 war. The idea is to have sufficient credible military force available to deter any adversary from taking action, aggressive action that you would otherwise be obligated to respond to. The concept basically is don't do anything or else you're going to have consequences. But the problem is this, even though Joe Biden has said, don't do anything, nobody believes him, which weakens the very purpose of deterrence, because nobody believes, even with credible military force, that it'll be used to deter any violence. And I think that's the issue we're really faced with right now. Well, what are the aircraft carriers and their

battle group support vessels going to do? Bombard Gaza from the sea? Well, no. Theoretically, there would be no direct U.S. military intervention or use of U.S. military force in Gaza. I can't see that. We've never done it before. I don't see it happening here. What I do see potentially military force being used, and this is something that has happened. We've had a number of Iranian based militias, other terror groups, which have been attacking U.S. interests within the Middle East and Iraq within a number of places which relate to the issues of our profile, our deployment locations. So that's what we're faced with right now is that issue is what would our military force be used to regarding military, U.S. military objectives, not to support the Israelis directly. Okay. Here's Colonel McGregor two days ago with Tucker Carlson. This is Tucker three, Chris, in which Tucker Carlson asks Colonel

McGregor if the U.S. military is ready. It's an intriguing answer. I'd like your thoughts on it. How is the U.S. military, do you think, having spent your life in it, leading troops in combat and at the Pentagon, positioned to respond to war with Iran right now? Are we in a strong position or not, in your view? No, I don't think we're in a strong position. I think we're probably at the weakest point in our recent history. We don't have the means to rapidly ship a large force of 80,000 to 100,000 troops on the ground into the region, which means that we're reliant on special forces and right now 2,000 Marines and perhaps 2,000 special forces and special operations forces.

That's not going to make much of a dent. And as we've seen quite recently within the last 24 hours or so, some of our special ops forces and Israeli special ops forces went into Gaza to reconnoiter, to plan for where they might want to go to free hostages and make an impact. And they were shot to pieces and took heavy losses, as I understand it. I think that's where we're headed. And I don't see that as a win for Israel in any way, shape or form. And I certainly think it's very dangerous for us. OK, there's a lot to unpack here. One, do your sources coincide with Colonel McGregor's about

U.S. special forces on the ground? Two, were special forces injured or killed? And Western media doesn't know about that. That would be front page of the New York Times. And three, what is the likelihood that if we do get on the ground there, Iran will enter the fray? First part, we have special forces everywhere, Judge, everywhere. I mean, there's more places than I think people fully understand. And the second point, I don't know if they were injured or not. Generally speaking, I get a pretty good sense of things happening that are bad. I can't verify that one way or another. I don't think so, but I don't know. Third, going to the point of engagement and what would happen combat-wise. Omar Bradley,

General Omar Bradley, World War II general, said professionals, amateurs talk strategy, amateurs talk logistics. And Greg mentions in there, Doug McGregor says in there that we are not positioned to respond, and we're not, because we have not thought through. I would summarize it by the Pentagon's faced with a number of what I would term strategic dilemmas. They have a number of areas of instability. The one you just mentioned that we're talking about is, one, you have the Taiwan Straits. You've got issues, obviously, with Poland. We have a large footprint of soldiers in Poland right now, and they're going to be tied down

there. So at this point, because there are so many draws on the logistics and the support infrastructure of the Pentagon, we're not prepared to actually go in in any concerted way, especially with a near peer like Russia or China, let alone the Iranians. And so I do believe what we're seeing right now is death by a thousand cuts. Our adversaries know that we're stretched thin. They're going to make a stretch even more, more so that we can respond to less. And then the Biden White House is helping him because there's no cohesive policy. They're basically on board with us, with us not having a cohesive, focused ability to respond. Aren't the aircraft carriers, one in the Mediterranean, the other

either in the Persian Gulf or the Red Sea, provocative? Aren't they inviting Iran to get involved? McGregor says, I think you probably agree, we're in no position to resist Iran if they attack us. I disagree. I think it is what it is. We always do these responses. If the Iranians interpret it that way, then that's on them. Judge, again, Nixon responded in a similar way, sending carrier battle groups and other military forces in a very aggressive response back in 1973. I don't think he, Nixon, was accused of being provocative. I think that faced with the circumstance we have to be credible as a military force, you have to have forces available to do something. Arguably, the whole thing with Benghazi was we had military forces available. The political

choice was not to respond. And I think that's what they're counting on this time. Again, we have credible military force, but nobody believes there's a credible leader at the top who will use it for any purpose. So that's what the most dangerous thing is. It's not the provocation of forces. It's a provocation of lack of response by the forces. Will special forces or SEALs, whatever group you have, CIA, aid the Israeli ground invasion of Gaza? Why should they be there with weapons in their hands to kill people in Gaza? No, the Israelis have been very clear on this in the past, and I don't see any change or deviation from the past policy. The U.S. is very likely to have, and Axios has reported on

this, there's a Marine Corps Lieutenant General and others who are there to help advise on lessons of Mosul and of other battles we had, Fallujah, things like that, where U.S. was heavily involved in urban warfare. So I see the advisors staying there through the beginning of the battle. I see them even being potentially near the battlefront. But I don't think the Israelis have ever wanted, nor does the United States ever want to engage directly as boots on the ground with the Israelis as they go into military and combat operations. It's never happened in the past. I don't think they want it now. If Israel invades on the ground, will Russia get involved, either militarily, diplomatically, or in some other way? So Russia is playing a very similar role to what it did back in 73. Remember

back then, it was a bifurcation of the West and East, the West being United States primary, the kind of the, the, the hegemon. And then you had the Russians, the Soviets as the other hegemon. And I think that's what we're seeing again now with the Russians and Chinese and Iranians kind of all on one side. So the Russians are involved. The Russians are the ones who were the partner to the Syrian government. Anytime you do something in Syria, and the Israelis already have, you basically are dealing with not only Syria, you're dealing with Russia because Russia is the client state that supports them. Iran is the same way. You've got basically Russia right now behind the Iranians in a very large degree because of relationships relating to the Ukraine war with the Iranians in a very large degree because of relationships relating to the, to the, the Ukraine war with the Iranians. Iranians are producing drones that are being used in the war.

So there is a larger, again, kind of, I don't want to say it's a second Cold War. It's not quite that clear, but there is a clear Russian influence and presence within the Middle East. And the Russians, by the way, this is something that people tend to forget. When Joe Biden did his trip, Judge, almost 10 days ago now, over there, I guess two weeks, time flies. At the same time, Biden was actually physically going to meet with leaders, with al-Sisi, with King Hussein of Jordan, and Prince Sa Prince, I guess I always get this wrong, Prince Salman from. Yeah, this is when they stood him up. Yeah. So he, yeah, they stood him up because Vladimir Putin was on the phone calling these guys to include Bibi Netanyahu.

So behind the scenes, Putin is trying to be seen as a rational guy who can actually create space for negotiation. So it's not just a relationship with the Iranians, not just a relationship with Syria. Putin's reaching out to all of these leaders that we otherwise would have a direct relationship with. And I think it's one of the reasons Biden got blown off. So here's what I really want to drill down on. Do we make, do we, the U.S., make things worse, even for the Israelis, by our muscular presence there? And before you answer, Chris, Kirby 3, innocent civilians are going to die. This is war.

It is combat. It is bloody. It is bloody. It is ugly. And it's going to be messy. And innocent civilians are going to be hurt going forward. I wish I could tell you something different. I wish that that wasn't going to happen. But it is going to happen.

And that doesn't make it right. It doesn't make it dismissible. It doesn't mean that we aren't going to still express concerns about that and do everything we can to help the Israelis do everything they can to minimize it. But that's unfortunately the nature of conflict. Does our muscular military presence there make things worse for Israel? Well, I got to comment first off on John Kirby's really nicely done velvet, almost a velvet sheen about him. The suit and the tie go together so well. I think it just adds to his aura of of of spokesmanship. Just say you are you are busting his chops.

I like and we both know him. He thinks you're flattering him. He does. I know he does. Yes, I know. Yes, John, I'm flattering you. Anyway, let's move on to the question. So, Judge, look, he's saying the obvious, and he's saying the obvious because they have no idea of what to do. Biden understands clearly what the consequences are going to be of the Israelis going in. This is not news. You don't need John Kirby, Admiral Kirby, reiterating to us what we've known since the

beginning of warfare, that people, innocent people are going to be suffering and they're probably going to die. And it's an unfortunate thing. I don't believe in it. You and I have had personal conversations about this. You know my personal beliefs regarding warfare. I don't think it should be engaged in unless absolutely necessary, but there are times you have to engage in it. And so I don't know why Kirby is taking such a dramatic pause to put this out there.

I will say this, as I mentioned earlier in our interview, that the Biden administration is trying to have it both ways. They want to support the Israelis and be very adamant about it, want to send in these generals to help advise. At the same time, they're trying to work with Hamas to make sure that the hostages, U.S. hostages are returned as a priority, $100 million to the Palestinians, and also working behind the scenes to undermine the strategic interests of the Israelis by trying to encourage others, other nations to ask for a ceasefire. So again, there's a bifurcation of policy. Kirby knows this. And so the only thing Kirby can go to is this dramatic, it's like, oh yeah, it's going to be bad. And it is going to be bad, but that's not John Kirby's job to tell us. I think the media is going to do a good job on its own. Here's sort of a funny clip that happened yesterday. Mrs. Clinton making the Biden administration argument. She's interrupted by a heckler. Look, we both have been interrupted by hecklers. It can be right. But this kid, whoever he is, is right on the mark in what he says.

And I want you to listen at the very end, which was cut off when a lot of our colleagues in the media ran it. When the thug who tries to pull the kid away says, I need your identification. I need it right now. Like Mrs. Clinton's going to come after you. But this is this is fun, funny, but but important as well. Oh, yeah. What do you have? Can you please can you please make a statement about President Joe Biden's speech? This is a clearly warmongering speech. President Joe Biden is calling for 100 billion dollars of funding for Israel, Taiwan and Ukraine. And we're supposed to just bundle these together and pretend like we're going to rush to World War Three and we're all just going to let Hillary

Rodham Clinton sit here. Okay. Yes. I'm sorry. You know, this is not the way to have a conversation. If you want to have a conversation, you're welcome to come talk to me afterwards. You can sit here. Okay. You're going to wait for me, right?

Please. I do not believe you. I will listen to you and I will respond to you. I do not believe you. Respectfully, I do not believe you. In fact, the matter is that the American people's voice are what need to be heard. Yeah, they are being heard. Because our president is not speaking for the American people

and neither are you. Well, that's your opinion. That's your opinion. Yes, that's my opinion. Well, then sit down. We've heard your opinion. Thank you very much. What I have done is I have asked Hillary Rodham Clinton to denounce the president's openly warmongering,

suicidal, idiotic speech. And that's what I've asked. That's what I've done. So that's the end of our conversation, but I'll still meet you outside. But you're done. Good on him. Good on the kid. Kid, you know, it's rude and intrusive and disruptive, but it's great dialogue and it pushes her to the wall. And she's not going to denounce Joe Biden's speech as terrible and bellicose as it was, because she, had she been in the Oval Office, would have made one even more bellicose. Yeah. Look, this goes back to a great quote from Apocalypse Now. We cut their arms off and give them Band-Aids in return. And that's what Hillary Clinton's always done. All this peacenik stuff she talks about, it's complete baloney. And the kid calls her out for it. It's a narrative. They're trying to form a narrative. Hillary Clinton single-handedly with a Barack Obama's authority, destabilized Egypt and Libya by going after Gaddafi. And she even

admits this on tape about how basically they decided there's a policy to assassinate a leader of a nation, Libya. And Libya is now in chaos. So Hillary Clinton is the last person in the world to actually do anything relating to humanitarian aid or work. Clinton Foundation in Haiti, I mean, I could go through a list of things here. I mean, I didn't even prepare any notes here. We could go through a dozen things. But the kid is correct. There's no interest in actually trying to step away and find peace. Hillary Clinton, as much as others, are part of the neocon collective that have no interest they will say one thing and do something else

is Joe Biden taking a chance in riding on the war horse to re-election that maybe the American public is not interested in military cash

and perhaps human expenditure for these two wars. Is he assuming that Americans will back him on these two wars? And is it a risky assumption? He doesn't care. Look, he's got the lowest polls, I think, in the history of modern polling, 37% approval. I think it's lower than that. He doesn't care. This is about trying to build a narrative, which he thinks will win. Come on, Bidenomics? Judge, who buys Bidenomics? I mean, I go down here, I see people right now who literally are struggling to pay bills, having to pay three and times more. I think people know what's going on. The question becomes, will they do something about it? Because I don't think him becoming a wartime president is going to help him ultimately yeah it may bump him in the polls but people recognize and i think most time they're going to vote by what affects their pocketbook and personal lives a war would affect

most of us badly some of us will probably be called back up to duty but there's no interest i think by the american people of seeing another war and there's been no justification for people like hillary are going to try to do it john John Kirby is going to be out there saying how bad it is and we have to help, but I don't think anybody's going to buy into it. At least I hope not. Okay. Switching gears, John Kirby and others have said for the past several months that the United States has run out of 155 millimeter shells to send to Ukraine. And that's why we sent cluster bombs. Oh, bingo. They found a warehouse with 155-millimeter shells, dispatched them to Ukraine, turned them around and dispatched them to Israel.

Question, should Ukraine expect more of Israel going to the head of the line? Second question, how much longer can Ukraine put up with its losing battle? Well, let's go for the latter first. They've lost. This is why the media is so quiet on this, Judge. I mean, if they had won, if they had prevailed as they set out specific strategic objectives, like getting back to Crimea and all this other stuff, if they had done that, people would have been singing their praises.

No, it's like little mice running away in the night quietly, trying to get out of the headlights. And that's the dilemma of Zelensky. Do they ask for more and draw attention to their failure? Or do they just be quiet and hope for the best? I think it's the latter, the strategy, because Joe Biden in his latest appropriation, I think he did a 60-40 split, 60% to Ukraine, 40% to the Israelis, which has got a lot of people in Congress upset because most of the people in Congress, except for a few, do support the Israelis adamantly. And so this is not going over well, nor should it. And so I think Zelensky at this point is facing a material defeat because there's just not going to be enough stuff there for them. And yeah, CNN reported back in January of this year that the United States had raided the wartime stockpiles.

We had pre-positioned in the region to include Israel. And I think, I think Egypt, I don't know that for a fact, but I know we have a pretty good, pretty big stockpile there. And to your point, yeah,

they're bringing it all back because the Israelis are going to need that. And I would argue it's one of the reasons they've, they've delayed their ground offensive because I think they're waiting for this stuff to show back up. It takes times to move that amount of ammunition. You mean we have given physical material to Egypt that we now want to take back and transfer to Israel? So what we do as a military is we have large pre-positioned logistics stockpiles. They're in Egypt, but they're not Egyptian. We will set these things up. These are big old, I mean, you could probably see them from orbit if you actually look close enough. They're big old stockpiles because it takes a lot of time to move things over in a crisis situation. So you want to have, you basically

would deploy with theoretically, any conventional force deploys theoretically with about 30 days worth of supply ammunition and food. Well, to get more of that stuff there would take time. So the time that it would take to do that, you have to have a filler to come in and do that. So that's why you have pre-positioned wartime stocks forward so that you have something else you can rely on past that 30 days while it takes U.S. time to set up the new mechanisms to get things over there. That's what happened. So what we did, what the United States did, according to CNN, I don't have direct knowledge of this, but CNN reported it. And I think in this case, they were correct. The United States rated, pulled, I think, 90% of the 155 ammunition out of our pre-positioned stocks in the Middle East, which is a huge amount. So that's what they're trying to pull back.

And so those stocks will be going from wherever they were held, presumably Egypt, across the border to Israel. Very possibly. Yeah. And the Egyptians- Not to Ukraine. That's my point. No, no. Well, no, I think they were pulled out of this back in January. I think they had to be removed, moved back to the Middle East from wherever they were. I think they were probably in Poland. Got it. Got it. Tony Schaefer, thank you very much, my dear friend. Appreciate your time and your insight. We'll see you again next week, of course. Sure. Thanks, Judge. Okay. My dear friends, at 3.30 this afternoon Eastern, Colonel Doug McGregor, how much longer can this go on before it becomes World War III?

Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thank you.