Judging Freedom - CPT. Matt Hoh : Are US Troops Combat Ready?

Episode Date: March 31, 2026

CPT. Matt Hoh : Are US Troops Combat Ready?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Undeclared wars are commonplace. Pragically, our government engages in preemptive war, otherwise known as aggression with no complaints from the American people. Sadly, we have become accustomed to living with the illegitimate use of force by government. To develop a truly free society, the issue of initiating force must be understood and rejected. What if sometimes to love your country you had to alter or abolish the government? Jefferson was right? What if that government is best which governs least? What if it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong? What if it is better to perish fighting for

freedom than to live as a slave? What if freedom's greatest hour of danger is now? Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for judging freedom. Today is Tuesday, March 31st, 26th, my dear friend Matt Ho joins us now. Matt, thank you very much. What military purpose is served by boots on the ground at this stage of the war of choice against Iran? Thanks for having on, Judge. And none, absolutely none. In fact, it's the opposite of what you're taught to do as a military officer. You do not reinforce. force failure. And essentially at this point, that's what any type of ground element introduced into this war by the United States would be. It would be reinforcing failure. You know, you'd be being,

jumping further, deeper into the quicksand, you know, and contrast this. And this is why I think the peak of my disgust, my undiscussed, was reached on Saturday when I was reading about how Yemen's Ansar al-A, the Houthis, have entered into this war. And you could see the Iranians and the axis of resistance, their allies, reinforcing success. So the Houthis come into the war exactly at the four-week mark. If anyone thinks that was just a coincidence, I don't know what to tell you. But they come in as part of a plan, a plan that the Iranians and their allies put together.

They resourced it. They were patient in terms of waiting to initiating it. When the war came, they have executed it. It's a plan that has a strategy that allows them to meet their political objectives. And it's a plan that emphasizes asymmetrically their strengths against the coalition, the Israeli, the U.S. and the Arab vulnerabilities. And exactly at the four-week mark, the Houthis come into the war to reinforce that success. And here in the United States, again, I'm so.

disgusted by this. We have to listen to just whether it's Donald Trump or Pete Hegseth or Carolyn Levitt or Mark or Rubio put out these lies about how well the war is going. And then we are and we have to endure through the news media and social media commentators, this endless stream of nonsense about a ground invasion, about how this would turn things around or how it would seizing Corg Island would allow the United States to have leverage over Iran at the negotiating table, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. You know, it is. It's disgusting, Judge, and introducing a ground element into this war.

And we can go into details of it specifics if you want, but it would serve nothing more than a very vain and venal attempt to take the initiative in this war, to take the headlines back in this war, as well as to allow for some type of propaganda, some type of photo op of Marines on a some Iranian beach. with American flag so that men and women like Trump and Higgseth and Rubio and Leavitt can say that we've won. This was the grand finale. This is what put us over the edge, and now we can go home, declare victory and go home. How do 4,000 Marines?

They are probably, you tell me, 95% under the age of 25, feel about being mercenaries for a foreign country? Well, I mean, from what we're seeing from social media, Judge, the feeling is unlike anything, or at least the expression is unlike anything I've seen in my lifetime. I imagine it was probably similar to what would have been seen during the Vietnam War in terms of the dismay, the disgust, the apathy, the frustration. being put in this situation, whether it's carrying out being put in the position of carrying out a war for reasons that can't be understood or for reasons that are understood to being in the service of a foreign power

or the military industrial complex or because we're the bad guys. This is what empires do. We weren't, you know, we're not the Wolverines from Red Dawn. If people remember that great Cold War movie, we're the Soviets. I mean, so I, I, I think there is a frustration, a dismay, and anger that we're seeing come through social media that, you know, certainly wasn't able to be presented throughout, you know, say the most of the rock and the Afghan wars. At the same time, too, we have to realize that many service members are in a bubble. Many come from families. They come out of communities that believe in American exceptions and they believe in their patriotic duty to go abroad to fight America's enemies,

as well as to just the conditioning, someone called brainwashing that you endure in the U.S. military to provide this belief, to provide this myth that you are wearing a white hat. So while there have been, like as I said, a large number of, there's been a large number of expressions of you know against this war coming from within the military you also have to remember that there are many in the military who are in favor because of the bubble that they're in wow but what legitimate military goal could be achieved even from their perspective other than a flag on a beach none none that i can think of judge i mean i mean certainly you don't have the amount of force available to actually take...

That's what I wanted to ask you. They're at most 4,000 Marines and maybe 10,080-second airborne. Right. And out of those 4,000 Marines, roughly half are what you would consider be war fighters, right? The rest are either they do combat service support or they're part of the air wing. So they're not going to be Marines with rifles on the ground in their lightly armed. They don't have tanks. They don't have really any artillery or anything heavy to support them.

and they be put in a position where they would be extremely vulnerable. I mean, I'm very worried about this. I know a lot of my colleagues are that the American military is not prepared to fight a war in the 21st century, that just like our politics, our imperial view, our understanding of world economics, all these things are rooted in the 20th century. This war, I believe, Judge, this war will be the marker for historians to say this is when the 20th century, the American century, the American imperial order ended, and the multieth century. Polar world began. I think this would be a radically transforming event of that nature. And you can see that in the way the

Americans look at this war, let alone everything else. We are fighting essentially a 20th century war here against a 21st century adversary. So my concern then, if you bring that down to the operational, the tactical levels of war, is that we're putting on these shores of these Iranian beaches flying them in, because they're not going to be landing by boats, so they'll be flown in. Marines and soldiers who will be heavily exposed to the very drones and missiles that are pulverizing the American bases

all throughout the regions. You basically have had more than a dozen American bases in the region become not just inoperable, but also uninhabitable because of these drones and missiles. And we've had decades to prepare these bases for such an event, for such a contingency. And we didn't. So the idea then of putting these young men and women under the open sky on some Iranian beach someplace, somewhere that the Iranians prepared for decades for

this war, more specifically they've prepared in the last several weeks for such a possibility. The Iranians out loud have said, we hope the Americans invade an American ground incursion plays right into our strategy. So, I mean, the idea that, one, we're doing exactly what our adversary would like us to do, but also, two, that we're putting our Marines and soldiers into a 21st century war that I don't think the American military is prepared for, even observing the war saying Ukraine the last four years, providing a huge amount of support for that, having forces involved, essentially our generals commanding the Ukrainian army for the first couple of years of that war. I don't think American Marines and soldiers are prepared

to face Iranian drones in a way that we won't see the first weeks of it be a slaughter. American Marines and soldiers would be on those islands, exposed under the open sky to these very weapons that they're being put there because of. And so the danger of that. But then what type of military victory comes from that? What type of military success? How does this change the war? It doesn't. I mean, the best thing you could say would do was be to you seize car, which is a fantasy but say you do that and you some you're not bothered by the 10,000 residents and the Iranians haven't prepared for this battle like you expected that they would all these things occur we used to call this judge in the military when you have some type of plan like this that was

preposterous when the obstacles in front of you were too great the people running the war game would would ferry dust it right so say we ferry dust carg island and everything goes well. It's not a problem. The reality is what then happens? Then we've got Iran's oil. We've got 90% of their oil exports. What does that do? If anyone thinks that that means the Iranian government shuts down that the IRGC doesn't keep fighting because they're not getting a paycheck, you simply don't understand anything. What that really means then is that now that three million barrels of Iranian oil a day that's going on to the market no longer goes onto the market. And that means that West Texas intermediate crude, our American benchmark, which hit 105 yesterday, is now going to go up to

120. And Brent's going to go up to 135 and 140. And we're going to be paying $7 a gallon for gasoline here in North Carolina. So, I mean, as well as all the other things that will contribute to inflation across the board, an inflation that will cause a recession. And then we'll be in stagflation by the end of this year. I mean, I think that that's what. successfully taking Karg Island would actually meet. And meanwhile, you'd have those Marines and soldiers, hard to resupply them, hard to medevac them, getting pummeled by Iranian missiles and drones. For the purposes of what? Ensuring that we have stagflation by Christmas time in the United States. So, yeah, I mean, none of this makes sense, Judge. The only thing I keep my sanity on is

when it's by looking at pictures of Trump and Hegseth and Rubio and Leavitt and realizing that, of course, this is what these people would produce. This is the type of war I should expect from these people, so I shouldn't be frustrated. I should just accept it, not accept it, of course, but not question why it's like this, because what other type of war would men and women like Trump, Heng Seth, Rubio, Levitt, et cetera, bring to us? I want to play the last 80 seconds of my interview with Professor Mirschammer. It's not me, it's all John. It's an extraordinary summary of where things are. Chris. We didn't even make any attempt to argue that the Iranians had done something militarily to

precipitate our attack on Iran. There's no provocation here. We just decided we were going to go out and we were going to whack the Iranians, both last June and again, this time. Furthermore, both the Israelis and the Americans are running around the world assassinating leaders. This was not something that the United States engaged in in large part, or certainly in an overt way in the past. And here we are. And furthermore, there's the Gaza genocide, right? The Israelis, here's an apartheid state executing a genocide in Gaza, and we're complicitous in that genocide. But if there were Nuremberg trials, right, where the Israelis and the Americans were brought before the court, President Trump, along with President Netanyahu, and many of their advisors would be hanged, right?

This is a genocide. Is it not? It is a genocide. What did we do in 1945 with those Germans who executed a genocide in Europe and who were not only accused of executing a genocide, But those German leaders were accused of launching a war of aggression. It bears remarkable resemblance to what we and the Israelis have now twice done against Iran. You can't dispute anything he said. No, not at all, Judge.

As sad as it is to hear somebody as calm and erudite, as Professor Meersheimer say that in a same world, the President of the United States would be hanged. That's what the law calls for. That's an international law calls for. That's what the past has shown us. That's what happened to, you know, the men and women who carried out the war crimes

from the war that we won. And, you know, this idea that the international law that was put in place, by the men who won the Second World War, by the American and Soviet generals, they didn't write it, but essentially the generals are the ones who put this law in place, you know, still holds. But it's been mockery. It's been the entire post-World, post-Second World War World Order, the American Imperial Order, has, you know, used the international law essentially as a fig leaf. It's used it for propaganda purposes. It's used it for its own public relations or to

mythologize what has occurred in the past or why present circumstances need to be such. I mean, I would argue, and I think Professor Mir Sharma would agree, you can make this case for many American presidents. You know, take even say Bill Clinton in 1998 after the embassy bombings in Africa that killed a couple hundred people. And during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Bill Clinton launched Tomahawk cruise missile on a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan because the Americans wrongly believe that that pharmaceutical plant was producing chemical weapons. The result was that Sudan went through a crisis in terms

of not having medicine. And the estimates are thousands, maybe tens of thousands of people die because of that. We just saw yesterday, the Israelis and the Americans, hit a pharmaceutical plant in Iran, hit a cancer drug plant. I mean, these war crimes are existing now, and they have in the past. The Lancet judge came out with a study last year that found, or maybe beginning of this year, that found that 38 million people had died because of American sanctions over the last decades. Now, when you combine that with the amount of people killed either in America's direct wars or their proxy wars. So the wars in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, the genocides that occur in places like Indonesia,

the Iraq, Afghan wars, the global war on terror, you know, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. You're talking the United States has killed more than 50 million people since the end of the Second World War, either through warfare, again, either direct or proxy or by sanctions. I mean, so this notion that somehow we don't have a criminal caste that the, American imperial presidents haven't been worthy of being tried under the Nuremberg laws. I think that that idea that they should be is something that could be applied, not just to this criminal in the White House, but I believe to pretty much every president who's come before him since the end of the Second World War.

How would you, when I first asked Scott this, he laughed and then he launched into a very articulate, surgical like tirade, how would you grade or evaluate Hegset's preparation for this war? I mean, the question is almost the answer is so obvious. The question's almost absurd, but I want to give you a chance to express the viewpoint from your perspective as a former battle tested, injured Marine in a war you once supported in which you now condemn. Well, I think. first of all, I think if I was Heggsett's teacher or professor or mentor, I resign. You're right? If I produced that, I mean, this is one of the things where if someone fails this badly, it's not on them. It's on whatever created them. And I think that's one

of the things here. What is Hegsetz a creature of, right? I mean, who has produced a man like Pete Hegseff? He spent many years in the U.S. military. He spent many deployments. He was an officer. He was trained in a certain way. He came to understand the American military certainly through his own jaundiced worldview, his own Christian nationalist fantasies, but there are elements of truth that reside in that that allowed him to succeed, whether as a host on a morning news program,

as an author, as the CEO of multiple veterans organizations, enough that the President of United States has confidence in this man. And so, I mean, overall, though, in terms of the execution of this war, the planning for it, I don't know how much Hegseth was involved in. How much, you know, I think I put the responsibility on those very generals and admirals, men and women who rose through the ranks throughout the catastrophe of the global war on terror, men and women who, when given the chance, when Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth brought then all to a, brought the generals and the senior list of advisors, all to a gathering in Quantico, Virginia,

last September and President Trump said, if you don't like what I say, get up and get out. None of them moved. All of them sat there and listened and all of them accepted. It understood that this is the military that I am going to leave. So I have a man like Eggstaff, the character, he's a cartoon. There are a number of things we can say about him, but I'm more concerned about the system that created him, such as a system that creates someone like Donald Trump. I mean, Donald Trump is an imperial president, just as I was saying, like previous presidents,

he's different, of course, because of his character and his ego, but the system you sits on top of, just like the system Hegseth sits on top of. Hengseth has only been there for a year. It's not Higgs's fault that the American Navy can't keep their ships afloat, right? It's not Higgs' fault that the American Navy has a $13 billion aircraft carrier that obviously damage control and crew training for firefighting has been seriously and neglected because that $13 billion ship is now out of the war because somebody left too much lint in the dryer. I mean, so this idea that somehow Hengseth is to blame for all this, I'll certainly give him all of everything he's due. But so much of this comes upon the generals and the admirals who have led a hollowed out superficial U.S. military, members of Congress that have provided obscene sums of money to weapons contractors whose primary perfect is profit and certainly not to national security of the United States, you know, as well then, too, just adherence to one war after enough. by the general body of the foreign, the American foreign policy establishment to include its diplomatic

corps, its intelligence corps, its military officer corps, that has just made this catastrophe with the war on Iran the latest in the long string of catastrophes. Here's a retired four-star general Barry McCaffrey, who in large measure agrees with you. Chris, cut number five. It hates us in some ways looks like a comic book, Puff Guy. And so I think increasingly inside the Pentagon, there's an element of chaos and hysteria to decision-making. Our remaining objectives in the Gulf War are stop the nuclear program and open the Gulf of Hormuz. Each of them are in danger.

You cannot stop a nuclear weapons program unless you have inspectors on the ground with robust rules of investigation. That's not going to happen under the current approach by the United States or Israel. The second thing you've got to do is you've got to open the Gulf Haramuz. I think the Iranians can outlast us. And no U.S. Navy warfighting vessel wants to be in the Persian Gulf, shallow water, restricted maneuver space, and subject to instant attack by many subs, floating naval mines, cruise ballistic missiles. It's just a nightmare of an operation. So the whole notion of forcing passage, even if the NATO allies joined us, is really tenuous. This is probably not going to work.

We have to have a diplomatic solution. What do you think, Matt? I always get disturbed by the generals who work for the defense companies, right? So I'm not sure what boards McCaffrey sits on, but I'm sure he does. You know, again, I think very often they put the blame on the specific individuals and certainly saying not that, of course, there should be blame here. But the system that they sit on top of, the imperial structure that they sit up top of this howled out military. You know, I guarantee McAfri someplace and other generals like him are making arguments for war with China. and this is the same Navy that's been around for decades now, and it can't get its ships within a thousand kilometers of the Straits of Hamoos.

This idea of them going into the Persian Gulf is absolute fantasy, but this idea that we can't even get our ships within the thousand kilometers of Iran's coastline, but we're going to then go and fight China is just absolutely insane. I mean, obviously these people are making money hand over fist in a manner that destroys any need for any type of conscience, you know, principle or just intellectual honesty. And so I see that a lot with these retired generals, their loyalty to the system and that they'll put their finger in the air and they'll see what are the wind saying about Trump or Hegsef or Biden and Blinkin or what have you. But the reality is that these are the facemen of the military

industrial complex, which dominates American foreign policy. It gives a manifestation of the American Empire, but it dominates American foreign policy thinking. It dominates the structure. You can't get a job in Washington, D.C., at a think tank, on a congressional staff in the executive branch, relating to something with national security or foreign affairs or the military without having been vetted in some way by the military industrial complex, without coming through some program or those. So a school like Kennedy or Stanford or Georgetown that adheres to that vision of American supremacy and American dominance of the need for $15 billion aircraft carriers, a need for a trillion dollar defense budget, and never questioning about America's military capabilities, whether it's capacity in terms of what can it actually do or whether what it should be doing, but only always defer to questioning the political leadership, particularly when it's an unpopular political leadership like saw with General McCraffrey. So a long, long spiel there, Judge, but essentially I think McCaffrey is just as much,

McCaffrey and his ilk, all those retired generals, they're just as much to blame for this catastrophe we're in, this losing war we're in, this war that we are having, we're facing the likelihood of a sunk cost fallacy or some type of need for a propaganda victory, meaning American Marines and soldiers are going to be put under open skies against Iranian drones. These are the type of men like General of Country have built everything

to get us to this point. Well, you're so smart because it turns out he does serve on numerous corporate boards focusing on defense and security. No surprise. Matt, thank you very much. These are dark days in America,

but to you and your colleagues on this show, have such intellectual honesty and personal courage. It's so refreshing. Thank you, my dear friend. Happy Easter to you and your family. All right. Thanks, Judge. Happy Easter to you and to everyone watching and listening. Thank you. All the best. Tomorrow, Wednesday, a full day for you. At 8 o'clock in the morning, Gilbert Doctor, at 9 in the morning, live from Tehran. My dear friend, Professor Muhammad Miranda, at 10 in the morning, Aaron Mante. At 1 in the afternoon, I'm not sure where he is, but we'll find M. Pepe Escobar 1.45 in the afternoon.

Colonel Karen Koukowski at 3 o'clock, the great Phil Giraldi. Don't forget, you can catch my Judge Napolitano weekly wherever you get audio podcast, Spotify, Apple, IHeart, Amazon. It's me defending personal liberty in a free society. It's a fresh, kind of short, six or seven minutes episode each week. Thank you for watching, Judge Nipal Tena for judging freedom. Thank you.