Judging Freedom - Larry Johnson: Does the DoD Know What It Is Bombing?

Episode Date: February 5, 2024

Larry Johnson: Does the DoD Know What It Is Bombing?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This new year, why not let Audible expand your life by listening? Audible CA contains over 890,000 total titles within its current library, including audiobooks, podcasts, and exclusive Audible Originals that'll inspire and motivate you. Tap into your well-being with advice and insight from leading professionals and experts on better health, relationships, career, finance, investing, and more. Maybe you want to kick a bad habit or start a good one. If you're looking to encourage positive change in your life one day and challenge at a time, look no further than Tabitha Brown's I Did a New Thing, 30 Days to Living Free. In the audiobook, Tab shares her own stories and those of others alongside

gentle guidance and encouragement to create these incredible changes for yourself and see what good can come from them. Trust me, listening on Audible can help you reach the goals you set for yourself. Start listening today when you sign up for a free 30-day trial at audible.com slash wonderyca. That's audible.com slash wonderyca. That's audible.com slash wonderyca. Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Monday, February 5th, 2024. Larry Johnson joins us now. Larry, thanks very much for your time. I'd like to spend, of course, I'd like to spend a considerable amount of our time talking about the American attacks on sites in Iraq. But

before we do, I want your thoughts on the latest in Ukraine. Some bizarre stuff has been happening in the past four or five days. President Zelensky says he wants to fire General Zelushny. Zelushny is still there. Zelensky says he's going to fire him again. Zelushny, the general, publishes a rather sophisticated but maybe unduly optimistic piece. There it is in CNN. The design of war has changed. The essence of the piece is we need more drones, we need more unmanned equipment, and we can win this war, at least stop the Russians from moving westward.

At the same time that is happening, the Prime Minister of Great Britain is sending, oh, we need a NATO expeditionary force in Ukraine, whatever an expeditionary force is, shades of LBJ in Vietnam. And then Prime Minister Sunak says, we need a no-fly zone enforced by NATO and British jets over Kiev. Is Ukraine on its last leg, and are all of these things signs of a dead or dying regime? Yeah, this is like that final scene from the Titanic, when everybody's in the cold water splashing about trying to grab something that still floats. They're on their way down. But, you know, it is really remarkable how clueless the Brits have become across the board. That, you know, think back.

At Dunkirk, they extracted, rescued 360,000 British troops. That was roughly the size of the British Army back then. Today, as soon as that was to send an expeditionary force, the Brits only have 70,000 soldiers. Well, one of my buddies who's a retired special air service, SAS guy, he wrote, yeah, we could stick them in like Wembley football stadium and there'd still be room for 40,000 more people. So Britain has become, I call it a bedraggled poodle. It is with no teeth and it barely can bark. You know, you just saw that today they announced, oh, this aircraft carrier or the HMS, whichever, that was supposed to be, you know, taking the lead in the latest NATO exercise that's underway,

had to pull out because its drive shaft wouldn't work. And then you got British ships running into each other. So these are the guys who are going to lead an expeditionary force into Ukraine. And meanwhile, in Ukraine, you've got complete disarray. I wanted to buy the rights from Netflix for the new telenovela, the soap opera that would be called As Kiev Churns, because each day there are new reports

that Zelensky's mad about this and Zaluzhny's mad about that, and Zelensky's going to get rid of Zaluzhny, and Zaluzhny says he's not going to go anywhere. I mean, it just goes on and on. So while these two are fighting, there is the fighting that's going on on the front lines shows that the Russians are making significant advances

all along the front. And in fact, in Avdiivka, it looks like they have now cut the supply road, which means there's a significant number of Ukrainian troops now cut behind lines with no supplies. I don't remember if it was you or Scott Ritter or Colonel McGregor who warned that if Zelushny is fired, and if he is replaced by, I forget the fellow's name, the general who's in charge of intelligence. Budanov. Budanov.

Budanov is in the pocket of MI6 and probably CIA. And he'll do what MI6 or CIA tell him to do, which might mean offensive weaponry fired into Russia. Is that a legitimate fear? Well, it's more the strategy is, and this comes more from MI6. they think that now the most viable plan is to launch an insurgency against Russia, that they can't beat Russia with conventional military force, so they're going to do an in London and in Washington, D.C. They forget that from like 1999 to 2009, the Russians were engaged in a 10-year counterinsurgency in Chechnya. They faced radical Islamists that are as vicious as ISIS.

You know, some of these groups had stormed a school. They ended up killing 600 people, you know, mostly children. So Russia has experience fighting insurgencies, and it has clear experience in actually winning it, winning it to the point that now those Chechens are loyal Russians and some of the best fighters that Russia has on the front line. So this is Western stupidity, foolishness, that they think that they can launch an insurgency. Russia's got all of the advantages in combating the insurgency. They speak the language, they know the territory, and they already have intelligence assets that have infiltrated all sectors of Ukrainian political and military institutions.

What is an expeditionary force? Is that just a euphemism for fighters out of uniform? It's like a salt block that you put out in the middle of a forest for a deer to come lick. That's what it is. It's bait. This is to give NATO a reason to start fighting Russia. That's how crazy it is. Because they're also talking about, oh, we'll impose a no-fly zone. The West, even with its current air defense systems that have been deployed to Ukraine, cannot stop and shoot down Russian hypersonic missiles. So this is madness.

These are desperate acts by countries that have no clue what they're doing. And they realize that Russia is winning and that they've now done everything possible they could to destroy Russia. And Russia has just gotten stronger with each attack, not weaker. Does the United States intentionally put troops into harm's way as sort of a reverse false flag, expecting them to be attacked and using that as an excuse to start or expand military activity? I would say no, normally, but it doesn't mean that it couldn't happen. It's just that the military guys I've known, even the ones as bad as Petraeus and Ben Hodges, they wouldn't stoop to that level. But what happens is that is the end result.

In other words, they put them into a physical location with a particular mission, having not thought through what the implications of that are. And so, you know, by putting them in Syria, in these various spaces like Al-Tanf and Deir el-Zor, they give them this mission basically to protect oil and to provide, ensure that Israel continues to receive oil, but they couch it that you're fighting ISIS without thinking through the fact that these tribes that are out there in western Iraq, we like to call them,

these aren't terrorists, but these are tribal groups, and they're Shia. So you've got a combination of family ties and religion, and, you know, they don't like outsiders. And so they're in a prime position to attack us, and every attack we launch on them is going to raise the level of desire for revenge, which means they're going to come after us more and more, not less and less. And that's the mistake that the Biden administration is making. They think that he can kill their way out of this, that we can kill enough of these people that they'll finally say, oh, we're exhausted, we give up. It's just the opposite. It's the only way out of it to get the hell out of there. I mean, Reagan took troops out of Lebanon. It was after 240 of them were killed,

but he resisted the temptation to accelerate the military activity. He told the neocons of his day to go take a hike. Yeah. Well, what really concerns me, Judge, is how we've really gone down that slippery slope. You know, 30, 40 years ago, no president would necessarily consider launching military actions and carrying out airstrikes in another country without at least getting some sort of authorization from Congress. They recognize that getting congressional approval means that you have at least got some political backing, that you're not out there all by

yourself. Or in addition, we went into the United Nations when we went back to counter the invasion of Saddam Hussein of Kuwait in 1991, we had the backing of the UN at that point. But then we get to 2003, and so without any kind of UN backing, we still go in and we invade Iraq. Now we've gotten to the place that we're launching military strikes in Syria, in Iraq, and we're doing it without the permission of any international body and without any congressional approval or authority, and not to mention doing Yemen. So now the United States has gotten to the point where it says we can attack any country we want,

and yet we profess to uphold this rules-based international order, you know, this sacred thing that, oh, you can only attack if you are attacked. Well, that's out the window. And we wonder why the rest of the world looks at us and doesn't believe anything we have to say and has zero respect for us. Well, we've lost the respect of, I think, the vast majority of the world. They see us as a crazed bully. Taking you back to Ukraine for a minute, how dangerous is this scenario? A Russian plane carrying 65 or 66 Ukrainian prisoners of war is shot down by an American patriot system

inside Russia. This has got to be the first time in history that an American missile has struck down a Russian plane in Russian territory. And the Kremlin exercises restraint and patience. You can imagine if it were the other way around. Well, let's just, if this was, let's apply the Tower 22 principle, that base in Jordan that was hit by, we claimed an Iranian-backed, you know, supported group hit that base.

Therefore, we must attack Iran. If the Russians were using our logic, they would be bombing Washington, D.C. and New York City today or tomorrow. Thank God they're not using our logic or lack thereof. But you make the correct point that what we are doing by supplying weapons and intelligence to Ukraine that is being used in turn to attack and kill Russian civilians. We're not talking about Russian military targets. And again, that plane wasn't a military target, even though it was a military aircraft that was transporting prisoners of war who are protected under the Geneva Convention. And then just over the weekend, again, with American missiles,

the HIMARS system, a bakery with people in buying, you know, eating donuts and drinking coffee, for God's sake. We blow it up, kill over 26 people, and then we expect the Russians to sit back and do nothing and to say nothing, you know, because you can imagine the outrage in the United States that would happen if Russia or whoever launched such an attack on a Starbucks and killed 26 people. So our moral math on this is way off. How far off is our military math? What have we... I know the answer is why you're laughing and I'm chuckling, but what have we managed to destroy or degrade inside Iraq in these 85 some odd, I don't know the exact number,

the government admits the 85, attacks in the past four days? I would say very little. You know, we've rearranged some sand. We've killed some civilians. Yeah, they've caught a couple of warehouses and there look like fireworks cranking off after we hit it. But we're not damaging and destroying their ability to act.

And in fact, what we're doing is feeding in. You know, look, we could go in there and stop it. We could take control and end the threat, but it would require a commitment of probably 2 million men, God knows how many trillions of dollars. And so it's in the realm of the possible, but it certainly doesn't make any kind of sense. And frankly, the United States isn't willing to make that kind of sacrifice. So I always come back to this point. If you're not willing to do what it takes to accomplish that mission, then don't do it. It goes back to what you said earlier. We don't need our troops there. We pull the troops out. We need to try more negotiation.

Bashar al-Assad is not predisposed to be our enemy. It is important to recall that when ISIS started acting in Syria and they were killing Christians, Syrian Christians, it was Bashar al-Assad who was protecting Christians. And he protected Jews. That's the thing people don't understand. He is not a religious fanatic, but he is a strong Syrian nationalist. Here's Admiral Kirby talking about Iraq, Baghdad, Bob himself. Yesterday on Fox News, cut number five, Chris, talking about the authorization for use of military force. What you saw on Friday night was just the first round. There will be additional response actions taken by the administration against the IRGC and these groups that they're backing.

There were growing calls from some on Capitol Hill that they need from the White House, you to come to them to ask for authorization for use of military force. Do you think that will come at some point with this specific set of strikes? The president is acting consistent with his Article II responsibilities as commander in chief. These are self-defense actions that we're taking to prevent and to take away capability from these groups from targeting our troops in our facility. That's such hogwash, Larry, but go ahead, please. Well, it's stupid. Kirby's stupid. The Biden administration is stupid because they're assuming that everything's going to go swimmingly well and work out exactly as they want, and it's not. Burn sour when they get another strike on another base in Syria or in Iraq that kills, this next time, kills 10 Americans, kills 20 Americans. And the question is going to be asked, wait a second, I thought we were degrading their capabilities.

Now they continue to kill our forces. And they kill our forces because we're there as a big fat target. There's long history to this. Back in 1983, the United States decided it was a good idea to shell Hezbollah in the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon. And lo and behold, a terrorist, a guy by the name of Idmag Mugnia, we call him a terrorist, he was a Palestinian, he launched attacks on the U.S. Marine barracks that killed over 50 Marines and then launched attacks on the U.S. Embassy, blew up the U.S. Embassy. So this back and forth, this revenge, this retaliation, it's in the air. And there is no Article II authority to just go out and unilaterally launch attacks when we're not even sure who carried it out.

And the people, this is the point, we're killing people who were not necessarily involved with that attack. So this is collective punishment, which again is illegal under the Geneva Convention. And we killed 25 civilians. They don't seem to care about that. How presidents misuse their authority. Article 2, of course, refers to Article 2 of the Constitution, which establishes the presidency and the vice presidency. And among other things, says the president shall be commander in chief of the armed forces. But, of course, the Constitution also says

that only Congress can declare war. To Madison, who wrote the Constitution, commander-in-chief meant you're in charge of the troops in wartime. It doesn't mean you can use them however you want and start any war you want, because Madison also said if the president can start a war and wage a war,

he's not a president, he's a prince. It's like a loaded gun in the president's desk, ready for him to shoot whenever he wants. But this is the modern post-Bill Clinton trend to shoot first and look for political support later. How dangerous, is Joe Biden playing with fire? Yeah, look at what happened. So we're now into week four of our military strikes against the Houthis in Yemen. So, you know, this notion that we can launch airstrikes

and that these airstrikes will weaken, decimate the Houthis in such a way that they can no longer fire anti-ship missiles has been proven to be false. They continue to fire those missiles. And with each strike in Yemen, they become more defiant. And I think we talked about this the other day when there was a destroyer had to use the Phalanx gun, which is, think of it as a gun that shoots out like a solid sheet of metal. It was, it destroyed a missile that was inbound. Well, one of my buddies who's a retired Navy SEAL commander, he commanded the Hercules barge in the Persian Gulf during the 1987-88 oil escort operations when the Iranians were laying mines. He said, man, this is bad news.

He says, because the fact that they had to use the phalanx, and that was sort of the last ditch measure to stop that inbound missile, meant that that missile had evaded and overcome all other air defense systems to get that close. It means it's just a matter of time before one of those missiles is going to hit and destroy one of our ships. And when you sink a destroyer and you're going to wind up with a bunch of dead sailors, well, again, the pressure is going to be on and, well, we're going to have to hit Yemen harder. But the point is, Judge, we're not willing to put, and I'm not advocating this, but I'm just simply saying that if you decide that Yemen's that kind of threat, then by God, activate your army and go invade it. But we don't do that, because from a military standpoint, it is so costly that it doesn't make sense. And we don't even have the

soldiers that are enlisted that could carry out the mission. So we have to pull back and stop pretending that we're some mixed martial artist specialist and that we can fight and defeat everybody. You know, got to look in the mirror and say, hey, I'm a fat old guy. I haven't been exercising and working out. And maybe we need to find another way to try to get along with people. Because the reason the Houthis are doing what the Houthis are doing is they want to stop the genocide that's underway in Israel. They want to compel Israel to stop killing the Palestinians, impose a ceasefire. The minute a ceasefire is imposed, the Houthis are going to stop. And give them credit.

Are we doing all of this as bidding for Prime Minister Netanyahu? I'm not sure it's so much bidding, but it is clearly the Congress, Senate and House, Republican and Democrat alike, are bought. The majority are bought by the Israeli lobby. You know, look, this history of the United States being uncritically supportive of Israel started in the mid-1970s. And it coincided when AIPAC became AIPAC. It had changed. There had been another name prior to that, and the previous leader of that lobbying group didn't believe in buying influence. His successor did, and so roughly from 1976 until today, so we're almost 50 years, Israel has been very aggressive in using money to buy

members of Congress and members of Congress happily accept the money and are very strong in their support of Israel. There are very few that can come up and speak with an independent voice. And when you look at, you know, some members of Congress like Ilhan Omar and Presley, they get attacked. And there are other politics that made them a little suspect. But the fact of the matter is, it is very, very, very few in the U.S. Congress that'll speak up and out against this needless slaughter that's taking place by the Israelis of the Palestinians. We're going to play a tape from RFK Jr. It's difficult to watch because he's irritated and he's in a shouting match with the woman that's interrogating him. I'm not even sure what network this is, but at the very end, he uses an absolutely incredible line the palestinian people are

arguably the most pampered people by international aid organizations oh my god they live in an open air concentration camp and they're being slaughtered like nothing since the holocaust but you'll you'll hear it in in a second and you'll be able to comment that line out of Bobby as Bobby's mouth is towards the very end. But here's cut number two. Chris Netanyahu and his government have said absolutely no. They built up Hamas to try to thwart any sort of Palestinian statehood. I'm not defending Netanyahu. And I don't co-sign with Netanyahu and Likud, though.

Israel is a divided country. 20% of the population are on the street demonstrating against Netanyahu. What I'm saying is the Israeli Hamas is a criminal enterprise. Sure. The Palestinian—and you talk about solutions for the Palestinian people. The Palestinian people are arguably the most pampered people by international aid organizations in the history of the world. Are you kidding me? Well, there was a time when small government, maximum individual liberty, pro-peace people thought Bobby made sense. But this is crazy.

The best thing said, that was the last line from the anchor. She couldn't believe him. Are you kidding me? Yeah. You know, if you come out and try to talk honestly about what Israel is doing to the Palestinians, and I'm not trying to pretend that there's no history there. And I'm not trying to suggest that, you know, the Hamas and other Hezbollah organizations have not done some heinous things in the past and that they're innocent as well. But if you actually try to have an honest discussion about this, you can't, at least in the United States, and be part of the mainstream. You will be attacked,

you'll be isolated, and you'll lose friends. And frankly, I think that's part of what Kennedy's afraid of. You know, he wants to be president, and there's money from, he's got some strong Jewish supporters behind him. And, you know, he knows that if he comes out and takes an even-handed stance with respect to what's going on, he'll lose their support. I mean, I've lost friends, and I regret that. But you can't put your head in the sand and ignore what's going on. It's one thing if Israel had attacked the actual Hamas fighters who carried out the October 7 operation. You know, that's fair. You know, they shot you, you can shoot them, but that's not what's taking place. Israel is engaged in collective mass punishment. They continue to tell these Palestinian civilians, go to this area,

you'll be safe. And as soon as they get there, they start shooting them and bombing them and killing them. And now they're starving them. And then they're preventing aid from reaching them. And then the most heinous of this is they go out and make this wild accusation that 20, no 12, well, six members of UNRWA, the United Nations Relief Workers Association that's involved with supporting the Palestinians. Oh, they were involved with October 7th without providing a shred of proof, a shred of evidence. But again, if there were six or seven or 12 or 20 or how many were involved out of a 30,000 person organization, you don't punish the whole organization for the actions of a few. That is not the American way, or at least what we once believed was the American

way. You hold people accountable for their actions. And that's part of what I think needs to happen with Israel. Israel must be held accountable for its actions because they are criminal. Do you think a point will come when some military, some state actor, Turkey, Iran, will get involved in degrading the IDF, fighting them back? Well, I think the IDF is degrading itself right now. They don't need the help of an outside force. And if they act on what they're threatening to do, which is to turn north and to go after Hezbollah, I hesitate saying this. From a humanitarian standpoint, I don't want to see that

because it's going to cause a lot of death and destruction. But from a practical standpoint, I hope it happens because that's the only thing that Israel is going to understand when it gets beaten, when it gets defeated in the field, that they'll recognize we can't continue this. And if we do, our entire country is at risk. Its very existence could be threatened. It takes that kind of, you know, it's like when you're dealing with an alcoholic or a drug addict. They've got to hit rock bottom before they come to a realization, I need help. Israel needs help to recognize that it cannot continue to behave in such a terrible criminal way in treating Palestinians as if they are subhuman.

You've got to treat them, you know, take that ultimate Jew Jesus, where he said, treat others as you want to be treated. Larry Johnson, thank you very much. Very dramatic and articulate comments as usual, particularly at the end. We'll look forward to seeing you at the end of the week with that youngster, McGovern. Thank you, Larry. Always a pleasure. Okay. Another very insightful interview for which I and I suspect you are deeply grateful. Coming up this afternoon, Colonel Douglas McGregor, Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thank you.